Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill.

Bill committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Earsdon Joint Hospital District) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British nationals now held as prisoners of war by the Spanish Government and by the rebel forces, respectively; and whether he will take action to secure their repatriation?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have no information as to the number of British subjects held as prisoners of war by either side. As I said in the course of yesterday's Debate, the question of the withdrawal of foreign combatants in Spain is before the Non-Intervention Committee, and I will certaining consider suggesting that the committee should examine the question of the release of prisoners of war as part of the general question.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposals are under consideration by the Non-Intervention Committee for the withdrawal of all foreign combatants in the Spanish civil war?

Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my Noble Friend to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Captain Briscoe) on 22nd February, and to the statement which I made on this subject in the course of yesterday's Debate, to which I have nothing at present to add.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that His Majesty's Government will press as far as they can on the Non-Intervention Committee for an early withdrawal of these combatants in Spain?

Mr. Eden: Yes, certainly, but the hon. Member will know how complicated and difficult the question is.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are contemplated by the Non-Intervention Committee to secure that none of the foreign naval units carrying out the blockade themselves participate in offensive operations on the coast of Spain?

Mr. Eden: The scheme of naval observation which is under discussion by the International Committee provides that the ships of certain Powers will be allotted zones off the Spanish coast in the occupation of that party to the conflict which is opposed to the party with whose policy the Government in question is in sympathy. This scheme appears to present the best practicable method of ensuring an impartial application of the scheme of observation.

Mr. Mander: What is to stop such States as care to do so firing on the coast? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed that there shall be British ships in various ports, such as Valencia and Barcelona, under the control of the Spanish Government?

Mr. Eden: I do not share the apprehensions of the hon. Member. There are risks in any situation, but I think that the risks will be less once the scheme


is in force than they have been hitherto. We are, of course, taking our share—rather a full share.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that there are British ships in certain of the ports of Spain, will they continue to be there under the new conditions?

Mr. Eden: I rather think that those ships are occupied in the transport of refugees. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave misgiving in many quarters with regard to the arrangements made in the Mediterranean for the supervision of this business?

Mr. Eden: I am not aware of that.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have considered the possibility of offering mediation in the Spanish dispute, either in conjunction with other governments or otherwise; and whether he can make a statement on this matter?

Mr. Eden: The question as to whether His Majesty's Government can take any steps to provide a basis of negotiation between the contending parties in Spain is constantly being considered in the light of developments. I regret to say that up to the present His Majesty's Government have received no indication that either party are prepared to consider mediation of any nature.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman acquainted with the attitude of the French Government in this matter and is he likely to get into touch with the French Government to consider this possibility?

Mr. Eden: As far as I am aware the attitude of the French Government in this matter is entirely the same as our own.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the developments which have recently taken place with regard to non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War, he will now see whether it is possible to arrange for concerted action by the Powers concerned for the furtherance of humanitarian work in Spain, in

order to prevent unnecessary suffering through famine and disease?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member will recall that, in reply to a question asked by the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on 15th February, my Noble Friend stated that His Majesty's Government were considering whether the question of any international relief action could now be further profitably examined. It was accordingly pointed out to the Spanish Government that, while His Majesty's Government were ready to give all possible transport facilities to the principal British relief organisations working on Spanish territory, they could not by themselves assume responsibility for the provision of relief, but that they would be ready to consider sympathetically proposals for an international initiative on the lines proposed by them at Geneva in December last. To this the Spanish Government replied that, thanks to the help already afforded by His Majesty's ships and to supplies collected from the interior, they had now collected sufficient food to meet the situation, although the assistance of private relief organisations would continue to be urgently required. At the same time I can assure the hon. Member that, in the event of the Spanish Government modifying their attitude, His Majesty's Government will be ready to take the initiative once more in this matter.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, in the recent affair of the "Havock" and "Gipsy," the anti-aircraft guns were not used against the aircraft instead of machine guns?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Stanley): If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the reply given to him on 24th February, he will observe that both the main armament, which is adapted for use against aircraft, and the machine guns, which are specially provided for that purpose, were fired.

Colonel Wedgwood: As that answer shows that machine guns were used and that 4·7 guns were fitted on the ships, may I ask the Noble Lord whether he has ever tried, as I have, to shoot at an aeroplane with a machine gun, which is only less ridiculous than shooting at it with a 4·7 gun; and, further, why the


anti-aircraft guns which were provided for that purpose were not used?

Lord Stanley: The 4·7 guns were adapted for use as anti-aircraft guns.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not the custom to fit the new multi-barrelled anti-aircraft guns, and why were they not used?

Lord Stanley: No, Sir, they were not fitted.

Colonel Wedgwood: Were there any of these multi-barrelled anti-aircraft guns on board these boats, and, if so, why were they not used?

Lord Stanley: The answer is that they were not fitted to these boats.

Mr. Garro Jones: If the aircraft were at such a low altitude as to be within range of machine guns, how did it come about that they were missed when the 4·7 guns were used?

Lord Stanley: They did not fire until the bombs had been dropped. They were not under war conditions, and therefore, naturally, did not open fire as early as they would otherwise have done.

Mr. Macquisten: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of gold has been exported from Spain to this country since the civil war started?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): 7,680 troy ounces of gold, value £49,089, were imported from Spain in the period 19th July, 1936, to 1st March, 1937.

Mr. Macquisten: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know how much has come from Spain through France?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No, Sir.

Mr. Macquisten: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know whether this money has gone to the credit of the Soviet Republic?

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that the gold has been exported from Spain to pay for their imports?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I could not say for what reasons it has been exported.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher (for Mr. E. J. Williams): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of

the case where the crew of the British steamer "Lenaria," at Boston, Massachusetts, have refused to load a cargo of nitrates consigned to the Spanish insurgents, whether nitrate is on the list of commodities prohibited by the Non-Intervention Committee; and, seeing that trading with the insurgents in Spain is an act which should not be countenanced by a friendly Power like Britain, whether he will take action to protect these British subjects exercising their right not to assist the enemies of a friendly Power?

Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my Noble Friend gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on Friday last. In doing so I should like to make it clear that His Majesty's Government have no information to lead them to suppose that the shipment in question was other than part of a normal business transaction with which it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to interfere.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALKAN ENTENTE.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the recent Balkan Conference at Athens, and as to the views taken by that conference with regard to the treaty of 24th January between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria?

Mr. Eden: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a translation of the communiquç which was issued in Athens at the conclusion of the recent session of the Council of the Balkan Entente on 18th February. With regard to the second part of the question, the communiqué states that the Council noted with satisfaction the conclusion of the pact of friendship between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia signed at Belgrade on 24th January; this pact, the communiqué states, corresponds to the aim of the Entente to consolidate peace in the Balkans; and it is consequently considered to be a valuable contribution to inter-Balkan collaboration.

Following is the translation of the communiquç:
The deliberations of the Permanent Council, which have taken place in an atmosphere of the utmost cordiality, have made it possible to affirm once more the perfect unity of views of those who direct the foreign policy of the four countries and the solidarity uniting the Balkan allies.


The Council, having proceeded to a thorough examination of the general European situation and the questions of particular concern to the States of the Balkan Entente, has agreed to reaffirm its desire to develop the whole activity of the Balkan Entente with a view to contributing to the maintenance of peace. Every effort in this direction will have the full support of the Balkan Entente. Faithful in its attachment to the League of Nations, the Balkan Entente is resolved to continue to collaborate actively in the work of Geneva in order that in difficult circumstances the League of Nations may be able to discharge its high mission within the framework of international action in favour of peace. The Council of the Balkan Entente particularly appreciates the recent agreement between Great Britain and Italy, which constitutes an important factor for the maintenance of peace and for stability in the Mediterranean.
The Permanent Council has noted with satisfaction the conclusion of the Pact of Friendship between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia signed at Belgrade on 24th January, 1937. It has affirmed that this Pact corresponds to the aim of the Balkan Entente, to maintain and consolidate peace in the Balkans. In consequence it considers that the Pact signed by Bulgaria and Yugoslavia is a valuable contribution to the establishment of a friendly collaboration between all Balkan peoples.
The Permanent Council bas noted the decision of the Economic Council, reached at Bled on 15th July, 1936, and has adopted the appropriate measures for putting it into execution.
Appreciating at its true value the contribution which the Press is called upon to make to the work of the Balkan Entente, the Permanent Council has affirmed with pleasure the cordiality which has marked the meetings of the Press Conference of the countries of the Balkan Entente.
The next meeting of the Permanent Council of the Balkan Entente will take place in September at Geneva on the occasion of the Ordinary Assembly of the League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

BROADCASTS (BRITISH DOMINIONS AND COLONIES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the propaganda broadcasts being sent out from Berlin to various British Dominions, Colonies, and Mandated Territories; and whether, in view of the matter broadcast, any representations are being made as to the undesirability of action of this kind?

Mr. Eden: So far as concerns broadcasts received in the Dominions, the hon. Member will appreciate that the matter is entirely one for the Dominion Governments. As regards the Colonies, Pro-

tectorates and Mandated Territories, reports received from Colonial Governments indicate that the broadcasts received from Germany are not of such a nature as to give cause for representation.

Mr. Mander: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to certain reports which have been received?

Mr. Eden: I have listened in to one or two of them, and they seem to consist of light music and a praise of German landscapes.

Mr. Thorne: When the German Ambassador returns to London, is the right hon. Gentleman going to have conversations with him about Colonies, in view of what he said the other day?

Mr. Eden: That has nothing to do with broadcasts.

BARCELONA CONVENTION.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the view of his advisers, Germany's recent denunciation of the international status of German rivers affected the Barcelona Pact of 1921 and the agreement of 1929 by which Czechoslovakia was given the right to establish her own zones in the ports of Hamburg and Stettin?

Mr. Eden: I am informed that the German Government have assured the Czechoslovak Government that they consider themselves still to be bound by the stipulations of the Barcelona Convention of 20th April, 1921, and by their undertakings in respect to the Czechoslovak free zones existing in Hamburg and about to be established in Stettin.

Mr. Henderson: Are we to understand that in fact there has been no interference by the German Government with the right of the Government of Czechoslovakia to establish these zones?

Mr. Eden: I understand that is so, but perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

CALENDAR REFORM.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Advisory Committee for Communications and Transit of the League of Nations have reported upon the resolution on the sub-


ject of calendar reform passed by the International Labour Conference last June; has the suggestion been brought to the notice of the various Governments; and what has been their decision?

Mr. Eden: No communication from the Advisory Committee on the subject of calendar reform has been received by His Majesty's Government since the date of the Council resolution quoted in the answer given by my Noble Friend to the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Walkden) on 10th February. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Day: Is the matter still under consideration?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I do not know.

COVENANT.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of making a declaration of policy to the effect that British armaments not only may but will be used in bringing help to the victims of aggression, in accordance with our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr. Eden: As the hon. Member will be aware, I dealt fully with this subject in the course of yesterday's Debate, and I cannot add to what I said then.

Mr. Mander: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is definitely not prepared to substitute the word "will" for the word "may"?

Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in yesterday's Debate.

Mr. Emmott: Do not the terms of the question on the Paper seem to indicate that the hon. Member has not read the text of the Covenant of the League?

CHINA (INSURANCE LAW).

Mr. Moreing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) particulars of the Chinese insurance enterprise law, which it is understood came into force on 15th January, 1937. particularly with regard to the respective obligations of Chinese and foreign insurance companies;
(2) whether he has yet had any report from His Majesty's Ambassador in China as to the proposal of the China Government to amend the law relating to insurance so as to require that all policies of insurance shall be in the Chinese language; and whether, in view of the fact that the new Chinese insurance law was originally promulgated in July, 1935, and came into force in its revised form on 11th January, 1937, he will ask His Majesty's Ambassador to expedite his report on the subject with as little delay as possible?

Mr. Eden: I am informed by His Majesty's Ambassador, that on 11th January of this year the Chinese Government promulgated certain modifications of the Insurance Enterprises Law, together with regulations for the enforcement of the revised law. One Article of these regulations provides that policies shall be printed in Chinese, and that, if a foreign language is also used, the Chinese text shall prevail. A further Insurance Law, governing contracts between the insurer and the insured, was also published on the same day. I understand, however, that these measures did not come into force upon the date of their promulgation, and are not as yet operative. I have at present no further information, but a full report upon the subject is already on its way and will reach me shortly.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reports as to whether the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs directed the provincial Government of Szechuan early this year to the effect that no foreigners or their Chinese representatives are permitted to do insurance business either in the interior or at any non-treaty port; and, if so, what steps he has taken to protect British interests in this respect?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I have received no information to this effect, but I am requesting His Majesty's Ambassador to furnish me with a report.

JAPAN (RESCUE MISSION INCIDENT).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make


concerning an attack by Japanese upon Englishwomen in the Osaka prefecture; and what action His Majesty's Government are taking?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Ambassador has reported that on the afternoon of 24th February the premises near Osaka of the Japan Rescue Mission, an officially recognised organisation engaged in social work, were forcibly entered by a Kyoto brothel proprietor and three male members of his family in search of one of his former prostitutes. In the ensuing struggle some four or five British ladies, members of the Mission, were slightly injured. I am informed that they are, however, suffering from nothing worse than shock and bruises. All the assailants except the proprietor himself have been arrested. I understand that the Acting Consul-General at Osaka is in close touch with the Japanese authorities, who are acting with energy in this matter. He has also seen Miss Kirkaldy, the acting head of the Mission, who has expressed herself satisfied with the attitude of the Japanese police.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are there any other cases of attacks by Japanese upon British nationals in which no satisfaction has been received?

GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL (TREATIES).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign affairs whether, under treaty with Portugal, Great Britain is bound to protect both Portugal and her colonies against all enemies?

Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which my Noble Friend gave to the Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day) on 10th February, and also to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 11th November, and 16th December, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand from that answer that the Government are proposing, under certain circumstances, to ask British subjects to go out and be killed in defence of Portuguese colonies?

Mr. Eden: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will consult the answer, he will understand a great deal.

IRAQ (ASSYRIANS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any suitable area in any of the self-governing Colonies, Protectorates, or Mandated Territories has been found in which it would be practicable to settle the Assyrians of Iraq; what contribution would be paid by the League and/or the Iraqi Government towards same; and will he make a statement on the present position?

Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies returned to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 10th February. It is impossible to indicate in advance how any new scheme which might emerge from the settlement of the Assyrians would be financed. The present position is that His Majesty's Government have informed the Council of the League of Nations that they are prepared to recommend Parliament to agree that the balance of the contribution offered by them in September of last year towards the Ghab scheme should be made available for any new scheme, which received the approval of the Council. This offer was subject to the same conditions as the original offer, which include the contribution by the Government of Iraq of an equal amount and a contribution by the League of Nations. I understand that the attitude of the Government of Iraq corresponds to that of His Majesty's Government. Moreover, the Assembly of the League of Nations decided, in October last, that the balance of the total contribution offered by the League to the previous scheme shall also be regarded as allotted, in principle, to any new scheme of settlement. As regards the last part of the question, the general position is that the competent committee of the League Council is continuing its efforts to find a suitable place for permanent settlement for those Assyrians who still wish to leave Iraq. His Majesty's Government are doing all that they can to assist the committee in its very difficult task.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee are meeting with any success in their inquiries?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot. The hon. Gentleman knows the immense difficulties of this subject.

Captain Heilgers: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel assured that the Assyrians are receiving considerate treatment at present by the Iraqi Government?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I believe the position at present is satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION.

Mr. Markham: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is satisfied with the meteorological information and weather forecasts supplied by the Meteorological Office; and whether he contemplates setting up a special naval meteorological department under the Hydrographer to the Navy?

Lord Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, there are technical and operational aspects of meteorological work which are peculiar to the Navy and arrangements are under consideration between the Departments which will make special provision for this.

Mr. Markham: Does this special provision involve the setting up of a completely new meteorological department under the control of the Navy?

Lord Stanley: It refers to modifications in the organisation which, when they are made, will more suitably meet naval requirements.

DIRECTOR OF DOCKYARDS.

Mr. Kelly: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention to appoint as Director of Dockyards a naval architect or practical shipbuilder, as was formerly the practice of the Admiralty?

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why a naval officer of executive rank has been selected as Director of Dockyards instead of reverting to the practice which prevailed prior to 1917 of appointing persons with appro-

priate technical and administrative experience of a kind suitable for the position?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): As already announced in the Press, the present Director of Dockyards will be succeeded on the 1st May next by Rear-Admiral C. P. Talbot, C.B., D.S.O. The policy of the Admiralty is to select for this post the most suitable person available when each appointment is made, irrespective of whether that person is a naval officer or civilian. The appointment recently announced was made on this basis.

Mr. Kelly: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the great shipbuilding programme which the Admiralty have in hand, they will now appoint an officer who is connected with, and who has practical knowledge of shipbuilding rather than one who has naval experience in the fighting forces?

Mr. Lindsay: I think experience shows that in this post what is needed is a man with more general abilities, and not of specific technical attainments.

Mr. Alexander: What has been the experience of Admiral Talbot in materials and in dockyard work?

Mr. Lindsay: I would like to give my right hon. Friend exact details, and I will do so at another time. Admiral Talbot has very considerable experience in both.

Mr. Kelly: In view of the fact that previously one with knowledge of shipbuilding was appointed, why has there been this reversal to a naval officer?

Mr. Lindsay: It has been the practice for the last 20 years, and it has been highly successful.

Mr. Kelly: It has not.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman seriously appoint as general manager of an engineering factory under his control a person having no experience of the running of such a factory?

Mr. Lindsay: I would like to point out that this position requires a knowledge of ships as well as of the work of shipbuilding.

Mr. Charles Williams: Do not officers have to fight and run the ships when they are built?

VOLUNTEER RESERVE.

Mr. Keeling: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that His Majesty's ship "President" is refusing applications to join the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve owing to her complement being full; and whether arrangements will be made for Londoners desiring to enlist in that Reserve to join another ship?

Lord Stanley: I am aware that the London Division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve is now fully up to strength. In addition, the division has already been allowed to overbear both officers and men on account of slight shortages in some other divisions. The hon. Member will appreciate that the necessity for attendance at drills makes it impossible for men to join divisions out of reach of their homes.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. Thorne: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the naval base at Singapore will be finished; how much money has been spent up to the nearest available date; what was the total estimate; and whether there has been any difficulty in obtaining iron and steel at the present time for this work?

Mr. Lindsay: It is anticipated that the base will be ready for general use in the financial year 1939. The expenditure up to the end of January, 1937, is £5,856,000; the total estimate is £11,211,750. No difficulty has been experienced up to the present in obtaining iron and steel required for the work.

Mr. Alexander: Does that revised figure include the expansion of the dock facilities to take double the number of capital ships?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the base be completed before or after the next war?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the Admiralty records show why all hon. Members opposite opposed its continuation in 1924?

ENSIGN.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what instructions have been given relative to a change in the colour of one of the components forming the naval ensign?

Lord Stanley: The Government Departments concerned have recently agreed to the re-introduction of the brighter shade of red formerly used for bunting and flags. This shade will be specified in all future purchases of naval ensigns.

Mr. Bellenger: While noting with approval the Noble Lord's reply, may I ask him to reassure the House that the change in the colour of the flag indicates no change in his right hon. Friend's political opinions?

Lord Stanley: I can assure the hon. Member that the change has no political significance.

PROMOTION (LOWER DECK).

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to what improved conditions, financial and otherwise, it is intended to introduce for warrant rank in order to overcome the breakdown in the supply of candidates for gunner, gunner (T), and boatswain?

Lord Stanley: I regret that I am unable to add at present to the answer given to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 17th February.

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ratings promoted to sub-lieutenant in the years 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936, respectively, who received their early naval training at the Gosport training establishment, His Majesty's Ship "St. Vincent," and the Shotley establishment, His Majesty's Ship "Ganges"; also the number of these officers who received their pre-naval training at the Royal Hospital School, on board the training ships "Mercury," "Warspite," "Arethusa," and "Exmouth"; and whether, in view of the low numbers from the latter establishments, more commissions will be awarded to their boys in future?

Lord Stanley: As the reply involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The selection of candidates for commissioned rank can only be made from the most suitable ratings, wherever they may have been trained.

Following is the information required:


Sub-Lieutenants promoted from Lower Deck.


Year.
Number of ratings promoted to Sub-Lieutenant.
Number who received training as rating in His Majesty's Ships
Pre-Naval training in Training Ships, etc.






"Ganges."
"St. Vincent."



1933
…
…
6
3
2
1 (" Arethusa").


1934
…
…
5
4*
*
1 (Greenwich Hospital School).








1 (Lanes, and National Sea Training Homes).


1935
…
…
3
2
1
—


1936
…
…
4
—
4
1 ("Arethusa").


NOTE.—* One rating also served a short time in His Majesty's Ship "St. Vincent."

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the failure of the majority of boys, recommended as likely candidates for commissioned rank from the training establishments, to obtain commissions at the same age as public school cadets, as intended under the sub-lieutenant scheme, he will institute a scheme of promotion from boy to cadet on similar lines to that for the promotion of artificer apprentices to cadet (E)?

Lord Stanley: The present scheme for the promotion of ratings from the lower deck to acting sub-lieutenant is devised to bring the ages of ratings so selected into line with those of cadet officers. Up to the present the ratings promoted have, however, been somewhat above the normal age for cadet entered officers and the matter is amongst those now receiving attention. It is not proposed to adopt the scheme suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. Alexander: What is the main reason for the severe falling-off in the number of men promoted to officer rank from the lower deck in the last three years?

Lord Stanley: That is what the Admiralty is taking steps to find out, and is the object of the consideration which is being given to the matter now.

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of writer and supply ratings, respectively, between the ages of 24 and 30 (the ages between which reserve accountant officers are to join the Navy) who have passed the higher educational test for officer rank, and who have qualified professionally for warrant

officer, respectively; and whether, in view of the large experience and high qualifications of these ratings, he will reconsider the previous Admiralty decision, and institute a scheme of early promotion to commissioned rank for accountant branch ratings on the same lines as the systems for seamen ratings, engine-room artificers, and Royal Marines?

Lord Stanley: Five supply ratings and 15 writer ratings between the ages of 24 and 30 are at present fully qualified for promotion to warrant supply officer and warrant writer respectively. 166 supply ratings and 142 writer ratings have passed the higher educational test. It is not possible without considerable investigation to indicate how many of these ratings are between the ages of 24 and 30. I will again consider the possibility of instituting a system of early promotion to commissioned rank for these and other ratings of the accountant branch.

WARRANT OFFICERS (RE-ENGAGEMENT).

Mr. T. Henderson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of warrant officers over 50 now serving as the result of previous appeals to re-engage after reaching the age for retirement; and the number over 50 required to re-engage under the appeal issued last week?

Lord Stanley: The number of commissioned gunners, commissioned gunners (T.) and commissioner boatswains over 50 now serving is 68. The shortage remaining is 60.

Mr. Alexander: Are steps being taken to remedy that position?

Lord Stanley: I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have had a


committee dealing with this matter. We are now considering what further action can be taken.

VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

Mr. T. Henderson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many petty officers and other naval ratings have received craft training before their final discharge from the service in the home ports in the last three years, and the length of training period?

Lord Stanley: As the answer includes a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information required:


Number of Naval Ratings who received Vocational Training before Discharge.



1933–4.
1934–5.
1935–6.


Portsmouth
302
366
281


Chatham
116
150
96


Devonport
319
264
325


Total for the Royal Navy.
1,346
1,368
1,016


Notes.—(1) Ratings are not necessarily discharged to shore in the year in which they receive training.


(2) The men are trained for a large variety of occupations and the length of their training varies according to the occupation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

POLICE SEARCH, KFAR SABA.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why, and with what results, police searched Kfar Saba colony in Palestine, for arms?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): This action was taken as a result of an incident at the Arab village of Kfar Saba on 3rd February, when a truck containing six Arab passengers was fired on. Acting on information received, the police on 22nd February searched six houses in the Jewish settlement of Kafar Sava, three kilometres south-west of the Arab village. The occupants of these houses were suspected of having been concerned in the firing on 3rd February. As a result of the search, one new Polish rifle, parts of another and other military equipment were seized. Six Jews were arrested, of whom two still remain in custody.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have these men released; and has he observed that yesterday the Appeal Court in Palestine released Arabs who had been arrested for having arms on the ground that as they had been arrested after the expiration of the emergency regulations, the arrests were illegal?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I should like notice of the second part of the question. I had not heard before of the action of the Appeal Court to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. I certainly will not order the release of these people. They are suspected of having been implicated, and I think the charge ought to go forward.

Colonel Wedgwood: Are we to understand that in Palestine there is one law for the Jews and another for the Arabs?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly not.

DISTURBANCE, TIBERIAS.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any comment to make on the official communique in regard to the outbreak at Tiberias?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have seen a copy of the notice which was issued to the Press in Palestine on 2oth February. I have no comment to make on it.

Colonel Wedgwood: Was that a communique issued to the Press?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It was issued by the Palestine Government on the evidence given to them by the police and district officers on the spot. I have no information other than the official information.

Colonel Wedgwood: Could not the right hon. Gentleman find out further information; and is he aware that this official communique stated that there was a Jewish demonstration in Tiberias and the evidence was that a party of Jews—

Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: May I correct that statement? All the evidence which I have goes to show that this trouble was caused by a small party of Revisionists or New Zionists marching in uniform.

Colonel Wedgwood: That is the official statement. Can the right hon. Gentleman not get further information?

MUI TSAI (COMMISSION, EVIDENCE).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can arrange for the evidence given to the Mui Tsai Commission to be placed in the Library of the House?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Copies of the volumes of evidence have already been placed in the Library of the House.

HUMIDITY (MAPS).

Mr. Markham: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when it is hoped to have published maps showing relative humidity in Great Britain; and whether it is intended to accompany such maps with a new handbook of normals?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I have been asked to reply. It is estimated that the necessary computations will be completed in about nine months' time and that the maps will be published within 12 months. The average values will be published in a book which will contain maps showing the geographical distribution of relative humidity for each month and for the year as a whole.

Mr. Markham: Do I understand that such maps would be accompanied by a new handbook of normals?

Sir V. Warrender: That is implied in my reply.

Mr. Alexander: Will the companies who will benefit by this information be asked to pay anything for it?

Mr. Markham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a question, not of industries benefiting from the information, but of the nation as a whole benefiting?

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

JUNCTION AERODROME SYSTEM.

Mr. Logan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the special facilities offered, he

is prepared forthwith to select Speke as a central junction aerodrome in the proposed experimental scheme?

Sir V. Warrender: My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air hopes shortly to be in a position to announce the decisions reached by His Majesty's Government as to the adoption of the recommendations of the Maybury Committee. In the meantime, it is only possible to say that if the junction aerodrome system should be approved in principle the selection of the central junction aerodrome will demand very careful consideration, and no immediate pronouncement is possible.

Mr. Logan: Will the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on the subject?

Sir V. Warrender: I do not think that I am the person to receive a deputation, but I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to my Noble Friend.

MUNICIPAL AERODROME, LOUGHBOROUGH.

Mr. Kimball: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he is aware that Loughborough College has a well-equipped aeronautical engineering department with a large number of students, but that practical flying instruction is made difficult by the absence of any local aerodrome; and can he take steps to remedy this deficiency;
(2) whether he is aware that the Loughborough Borough Council over six months ago entered into negotiations and agreed the purchase price for a site of over 200 acres for a municipal aerodrome; and why the Air Ministry have so far failed to give their approval?

Sir V. Warrender: The proposals of the Loughborough Borough Council for establishing a municipal aerodrome have been under investigation. The technical inspection of the site has recently been completed and the views of the Air Ministry as to the requirements necessary to develop it into an aerodrome have been communicated to the borough council.

INTERNAL TRANSPORT.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air which commercial air lines in Great Britain ceased to operate in 1936; and whether any and what further steps are proposed to improve the system of internal air transport?

Sir V. Warrender: As regards the first part of the question, I am circulating the particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part, the question of the steps to be taken to improve the system of internal air transport is being considered in connection with the recommendations of the Maybury Committee.

Mr. Lyons: Is the question of Government subventions under consideration, in order to help these internal air lines in their great difficulties of development?

Sir V. Warrender: That is another question.

Following are the particulars:

Commercial air lines in Great Britain which ceased to operate in 1936:

British Airways, Limited.—London—Liverpool.

North Eastern Airways, Limited.—Heston—Leeds—Newcastle—Edinburgh. (Subsequently replaced by a line Croydon — Doncaster — Leeds/Bradford—Newcastle—Perth).

Southend-on-Sea Flying Services, Limited, with Short Brothers, Limited.—Southend—Rochester.

Crilly Airways, Limited.—Bristol—London—Norwich. Bristol—Leicester—Norwich. Liverpool—Leicester. Northampton—Leicester—Nottingham.

This list excludes suspensions of services during the winter season.

SEAPLANE BASE (LYTHAM).

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has now considered a site and factory at Lytham, Lancashire, offered to him for the purpose of production of seaplanes or as a seaplane base; and what views he has formed on the subject?

Sir V. Warrender: The offer was duly considered by the Air Ministry, but the site is unsuitable as a Royal Air Force seaplane base, mainly because of tidal conditions in the Ribble, and the Ministry is not seeking further capacity for the manufacture of seaplanes. The agents for the leaseholder have therefore been informed that the Air Ministry does not wish to acquire the property referred to, and at the same time an expression of thanks was conveyed to them for bringing the site to the notice of the Department.

Mr. Logan: Do I take it that if a reliable seaplane base can be pointed out, the Ministry will be prepared to consider such a site?

Sir V. Warrender: I daresay.

AERODROME BUILDING (BRICKS).

Mr. E. Dunn: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the bricks being used in the aerodromes in this country are being purchased from manufacturers at home and abroad; and will he see that the orders placed for bricks are located in the counties where the aerodromes are to be built?

Sir V. Warrender: As regards the first part of the question, the use of foreign bricks would be contrary to the contract conditions. If the hon. Member has any information that the conditions are being contravened, I should be grateful if he would inform the Air Ministry. As regards the last part, bricks are provided by the contractors undertaking the construction work, and it is not practicable to insist on their obtaining bricks made in the particular county in which the work is to be carried out.

METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE.

Mr. Markham: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any special funds or facilities are given to superintendents of the Meteorological Office to carry out investigations or research work; and whether the results of such investigations are published by the Meteorological Office?

Sir V. Warrender: No question arises of making special payments to members of the staff of the Meteorological Office, who are all whole-time civil servants, in respect of investigations or research work carried out by them. Provision is, however, made in Air Estimates to provide payment to investigators outside the office at Universities and elsewhere, and to the National Physical Laboratory for special investigations. As regards facilities for research at the Meteorological Office, the normal work of a large proportion of the staff is in the nature of research, especially at the observatories, and the sum total of research work carried out by the staff is very considerable, as will be seen from the list of papers published by them which is


quoted in the annual reports of the Director of the Meteorological Office. The Meteorological Office itself publishes two series of monographs: Geophysical Memoirs and Professional Notes. During the ten years 1927–36, 35 papers have been published in the former and 29 in the latter, and many of these deal with outstanding research work in meteorological science.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

SUPPLY.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether he has come to any new conclusions regarding separate supervision of the strategical aspects of Defence from the supply aspect of the problem?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the suggestion which he dismisses so curtly has the support almost unanimously of informed opinion as expressed both in this House and outside?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add.

NEW FACTORIES.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence how many new factories it is proposed to build in connection with the rearmament programme; and how many of these will be situated in the Special Areas?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): It is not at present possible to say how many factories it will be necessary to build for the purposes of the defence programme. The White Paper (Cmd. 5386) indicates the extent to which consideration has already been given in this connection to the Special Areas, and the Government propose to continue this policy as and when the occasion arises.

Mr. Paling: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that there are areas not included in the Special Areas which are equally hard hit with unemployment, and will he also bear in mind that, in answer to a question a fortnight ago, he admitted that not a single factory had been put down in the whole of Yorkshire?

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether it is proposed to establish any more aircraft or other factories; and, if so, will he bear in mind the heavy rate of unemployment in the Wigan coal area?

Sir T. Inskip: There is no present intention to establish further aircraft factories. Factories for other purposes will, however, be required, and consideration will be given to the Wigan area in this connection.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking not to arrange for the establishment of any factory in the constituency of a Member who votes against the Defence Estimates?

Mr. E. Dunn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the bricks being used in the construction of the Chorley munition factory are being purchased from the Fletton brickfields, whilst unemployment is prevailing in the brickfields of Lancashire and Yorkshire; and will he state what he proposes to do in the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): (for the First Commissioner of Works): No, Sir. I am informed that the bricks being used in the construction of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Chorley are being obtained by the contractor from brickfields in Lancashire.

Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister see whether it is possible, in view of the large unemployment among stonemasons, to use local stone, when it is available, instead of brick?

ESSENTIAL MANUFACTURES (IMPORTATION).

Miss Ward: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has acquired from the Board of Trade information as to the essential manufactured requirements of this country which are imported from abroad and not manufactured here?

Sir T. Inskip: I am in close touch with the Board of Trade and other Departments on these matters.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the other day the President of the Board of Trade said that no information was available, and will he con-


sider, when he receives the information, asking manufacturers whether they would consider setting up the factories required in the Special Areas? Could I have an answer?

Sir T. Inskip: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that long question down.

Miss Ward: Shall I get an answer if I put the question down?

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. De Ia Bère: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, in the event of any future wars, since ration cards alone without food would not prevent starvation, what steps he is taking to secure for this country an adequate supply of food?

Sir T. Inskip: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and to himself on 18th February, and to what I said on the subject of food supplies during the debate on the same day. I explained that though the Government's task is directed to ensuring the uninterrupted supply of essential food and is not restricted to control and rationing schemes, it is not possible to furnish information at the present time.

Mr. De Ia Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state, in order that more food may be produced in this country in the event of any future war, what steps he proposes to take to retain the boys and young men on the land instead of allowing them to drift away to the towns?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 19th January last to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Salford (Major Stourton).

Mr. Thorne: Are the Government doing nothing to put into cultivation all the land which is now out of cultivation?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the answer to which I have referred.

PRESS CENSORSHIP.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has established any official or unofficial censorship upon the publication

of information in the Press relative to the national defences; and whether such restrictions apply to the technical as well as to the daily Press?

Sir T. Inskip: No censorship of the Press is exercised. From time to time the Press are asked to refrain from publishing certain items of information the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to national security.

METALS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the Government have made any forward contracts for the supply of steel and other metals for use in the rearmament programme or whether they have instructed Government contractors to make such purchases at prices now ruling?

Sir T. Inskip: So far as direct supplies of the materials in question are concerned, advance covering arrangements have been made in certain cases. So far as supplies of contractors are concerned, no instructions have been given. Over considerable areas of supply contractors are aware in advance of the probable requirements and can take appropriate action.

Mr. Garro Jones: May the House understand then that the price which the Government are paying for their metals for rearmament is at a figure considerably less than the greatly enhanced prices which are now ruling?

Sir T. Inskip: In a great many cases yes, certainly.

Mr. Alexander: Does the right hon. Gentleman now expect a reduction in the price of the material by the halving of the import duty?

Sir T. Inskip: If the right hon. Member is referring to iron ore, I will consider that and obtain information.

Sir Hugh Seely: Does it cover copper?

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the abnormal rise in the prices of non-ferrous metals and consequent advance in the cost of materials for armaments, he proposes to formulate a plan for the control of such metals?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): My right hon. Friend has consulted the Minister


for Co-ordination of Defence, and as at present advised they do not think that such a control is either necessary or desirable.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that there was again a sharp advance yesterday in the price of base metals?

Dr. Burgin: Yes, certainly, but if you want a commodity and there is a world price at which you can procure it, and if you set up a form of control in your own country so that you may buy it at a lesser price, it results in your not procuring it.

Mr. Adams: Are we to understand from the answer that the method of controlling metals during the War was incorrect?

Mr. Paling: Are the Government going to do nothing in regard to controlling these prices?

Mr. Garro Jones: Has the Minister ever heard of the principle of forward purchases?

TIMBER SUPPLY.

Lord William Scott: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to ensure an adequate supply of timber in the event of war; what quantity of home-grown timber will be available; and whether arrangements have been made to ensure that such timber is promply made use of?

Dr. Burgin: The questions involved in ensuring supplies of timber for essential purposes in the event of war are not being overlooked. Arrangements for the use of home-grown timber are being considered in conjunction with the Forestry Commission, but I am unable to give any estimate of the quantity of timber which is likely to be available from this source.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend taking any steps to see that a census of timber production is taken?

Dr. Burgin: I think that that is rather another question, but I have no reason to believe that the Forestry Commission are not well informed as to home-grown timber.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no census whatever of production in this country?

FUEL OIL.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher (for Mr. E. J. Williams): asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the extraction of oil from coal is seriously considered as part of the Defence policy of the country; and what progress is being made in implementing such plants for Defence purposes?

Sir T. Inskip: Yes, Sir. I would refer to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) on 17th February.

Mr. Paling: Does that mean that the process referred to has been a success and that it has been decided to go on with it and to lay down plants at other places?

Sir T. Inskip: No decision as to other places has yet been made.

Mr. Alexander: Have the Government considered the extraction of heavy oil fuel from coal?

Sir T. Inskip: I will look into that.

UNITED STATES (NATIONAL PLANNING BOARD).

Mr. C. Wilson: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the work of the National Planning Board in the United States, which is engaged in the organisation of housing, transport, town-planning, commerce, and industry; and whether he will consider the sending of a commission to inquire as to the success of the board's efforts in New England and report as to how far they are applicable to the British Isles?

The Prime Minister: Apart from references which I have seen in the Press, my attention has not been drawn to the work of this board. As at present advised, I see no ground for sending a commission for the purposes to which the hon. Member refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SHIP CANAL (NEW BRIDGE).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make a statement about the prospects of a new bridge or bridges to be constructed over the Ship Canal between Warrington and Salford?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hore-Belisha): No definite scheme has been submitted by the responsible authorities.

Mr. Smith: Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation recently from the local authorities, and, if so, what steps is he taking with a view to getting them together to carry out this most needed improvement?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: There was a discussion with the deputation. I did not participate in that discussion, but I await any scheme that may be submitted by the responsible authorities.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received the report from the chief constable of Stoke-on-Trent of the investigation that was promised into the number of accidents on the roads of the city?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: A committee of investigation appointed by the city council considered with my officers certain suggestions for improvement, and a number of these are now being put into effect, including the construction of several roundabouts, the erection of warning signs, the placing of pedestrian crossings, the resiting of refuges and the re-aligning of curbs.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a reply from the Transport Advisory Council on the question of the practicability of compelling all motor vehicles to be equipped with guards for the purpose of reducing road fatalities; and whether he proposes to take any action on same?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part is, "No, Sir."

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received a report from the Association of Municipal Corporations in response to his request that it should indicate any practical measures for the better protection of cyclists and other road users; whether he can state the nature of the recommendations which have been made by the association; and what steps he proposes to take to give effect to them?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I made no request to the Association of Municipal Corporations, but the Transport Advisory Council

are, at my request, investigating this matter.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (MANCHESTER AREA).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can inform the House about the proposed electrification of railways; and what sections of lines are to be electrified within a 50-mile radius of Manchester?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: In the area in question, electrification is being undertaken by the London and North Eastern Railway Company of the line between Mancheser and Sheffield and by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company of the Wirral section of their railway, from West Kirby and New Brighton to Birkenhead Park.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Are these railways being run by the centre-rail method or by a safer method?

DISABLED DRIVERS (PARKING FACILITIES).

Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to consider the issue of special instructions, or a special badge, to enable drivers of motor vehicles suffering from loss of a leg or leg injuries special facilities for parking their vehicles?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have no power to adopt this suggestion.

RAILWAY TICKETS (CONDITIONS OF ISSUE).

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many railway tickets are issued on condition that neither the holder nor any other person shall have the right of action against the company or other owners of any vehicles or premises upon which such tickets are available in respect of injury, loss, damage or delay, and that these tickets are issued in circumstances that the passenger cannot normally learn the conditions of issue; and whether he will take powers to compel the railway companies to publish clearly on posters as well as on the back of the ticket the conditions of issue?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am awaiting from the railway companies the result of the further examination which I asked them to make of this matter.

MOTOR VEHICLES (WINDSCREENS).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the danger to motorists who, having cars fitted with safety-glass windscreens, have found these suddenly rendered opaque by being struck by chance pieces of stone; and whether he will, in the interests of public safety, make inquiries into the extent of this type of occurrence?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. Consequent on my attention being called to this matter by my hon. Friend, I at once communicated with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION).

Sir Murdoch Macdonald: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to announce the Government's decision upon the report of the Committee on Electricity Distribution?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have decided to adopt in principle, subject to certain modifications in detail, the recommendations of the McGowan Committee for a reorganisation of electricity supply. As the Prime Minister has already stated, it will not be possible to add to the programme of the present Session a Bill dealing with this matter, but His Majesty's Government intend at an early date to communicate to the associations of the principal interests affected an outline of their legislative proposals, and we shall be prepared to discuss with the associations any points which they desire to raise. The major modifications in the recommendations of the committee are that the schemes for the consolidation of the separate undertakings will be prepared by the Electricity Commissioners, not by temporary district commissioners appointed for the purpose; and that in every case, irrespective of the size of the undertakings concerned, schemes made by the commissioners and not agreed by the undertakers will become operative only when confirmed by the Minister of Transport and approved by Parliament.

Mr. White: Will the outline of the legislative proposals be submited to the House?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: They will form the basis of discussion with the associations concerned.

Mr. Ede: Will these negotiations be confined to the associations or will the major undertakings of the country be consulted?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I understand that all the undertakers are in one association or another, and it will simplify matters if we can deal directly with the principal bodies.

Mr. Leach: In making modifications in the McGowan recommendations, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider the need of favouring the claims of the largest undertakings, the municipalities?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The modifications that I have announced are those that I have been given to understand will be generally acceptable,

Mr. Ede: Are we to understand that the Minister's statement with regard to the non-appointment of the second commissioner will also apply to the area of London and the home counties?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It will apply universally.

TRADE DISPUTE, HARWORTH.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Attorney-General how many possession orders have been obtained by Messrs. Barber, Walker, and Company, Limited, against their tenants at Harworth, Nottinghamshire, involved in the present trade dispute; and when the earliest order is due for execution?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I have been able to ascertain the number of possession orders applied for since October of last year by Messrs. Barber, Walker and Company, Limited. I cannot say whether the tenants are involved in the present trade dispute. Eighty-five possession orders have been made, but in only three cases has possession been obtained. The remainder are suspended on terms until varying dates. A further 173 applications were returnable on 23rd February, but the hearing was adjourned on the plaintiffs' application till 23rd March.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether any legal steps can be taken by these tenants to


obtain suspension of these orders, considering the negotiations which are now going on between the Minister of Mines and certain other parties?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I am precluded by my office from giving legal advice to private individuals, but I have no doubt that the tenants whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind would be able to get legal advice as to whether they have any rights in that respect.

Mr. Buchanan: In view of the fact that a large number of these people are involved in a trade dispute and that the taking over of their houses will bring women and children into the dispute, could not the hon. and learned Gentleman see his way to approach the firm and ask them, in the interests of humanity, to stop these possession orders?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that that is entirely outside my province. The hon. Gentleman asks for certain information in his question which I have got for him.

BROADCASTING (LUXEMBOURG).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that undesirable programmes in English are being transmitted on a stolen wavelength; and what steps are being taken to rectify the matter?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): Representations have been made to the Luxembourg Government on several occasions, both in regard to the broadcasting of advertisements in English from the Luxembourg wireless station and to the use by that station of a wavelength which has not been allotted to it by international agreement. These representations have not so far been successful. Further representations concerning the advertising programmes were made to the Luxembourg Government in December last; but no reply has yet been received.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: May I ask my hon. Friend what, in these circumstances, he proposes to do about it?

Sir W. Womersley: Keep on with the negotiations.

Mr. Groves: Will the hon. Gentleman recommend them to take their own bile beans which they advertise?

WESTLEIGH COLLIERY.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Westleigh collieries, which closed down a few weeks ago, have not re-started; and, in view of the demand for coal now above the present supply, he will communicate with the owners of Westleigh collieries to find out when it is their intention to re-open them?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I have made further inquiry, and I understand that the negotiations between the management and the workmen, to which I referred in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member last week, are still in progress.

Mr. Tinker: Is the Minister aware that from inquiries made, there is no truth in that statement, and that the owners have not attempted to negotiate, and can he do anything to get the two parties together?

Captain Crookshank: As our information is contradictory, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have a word with me.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not possible for the Minister to get in touch with the Minister of Labour to see whether they cannot avoid the consequences of closing down the pit?

Mr. G. Griffiths: Cannot the Minister get in touch with the trustees of the Nuffield Trust so that they can help this pit as they did at Whitehaven?

Mr. Tinker: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, and the fact that 1,300 men are out of work, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Sir Joseph Lamb: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that a large amount of foreign pottery was exhibited at the British Industries Fair camouflaged with part production of English manufacturers, the value of the articles from abroad being much more than the part made in Britain; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this perversion of the object of the Fair in future years?

Captain Wallace (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The regulations provide that goods, to be eligible for display, must have been "manufactured or produced mainly within the British Empire." If my hon. Friend will give me details of any specific instances which he has in mind where the regulations appear to have been contravened, I will have them investigated with a view to preventing a recurrence at future Fairs.

SHOPS ACT, 1934 (PERISHABLE COMMODITIES).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties experienced by traders selling perishable articles, which need a low temperature for their preservation, owing to the various decisions of local authorities in different parts of the country in the legal obligations imposed on shopkeepers to maintain a suitable and sufficient temperature in their shops; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure an equitable administration of the law throughout the country?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend has received representations from certain trade organisations in regard to the operation, in the case of shops in which perishable articles are sold, of the provision in Section 10 of the Shops Act, 1934, which requires the maintenance of a reasonable temperature in every part of a shop in which persons are employed. The Section lays it down that "suitable and sufficient means" to this end shall be provided, but the expression "suitable and sufficient" is defined to mean suitable and sufficient having regard to the circumstances and conditions affecting the shop. Subject, in the case of dispute, to the verdict of the Courts, the question is thus essentially one for the discretion of the local authority in each individual case; and, after full consideration of all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend has made it clear to the associations who have communicated with him that the matter is not one in which the Department is in a position to issue any further guidance to local authorities, beyond the advice given in an explanatory circular issued in

December, 1934, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Williams: Can my hon. Friend explain why what the magistrates consider to be a suitable and sufficient temperature to preserve a haddock fresh in Birmingham should be different from what it is in London?

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the comfort of the shop assistant is very much more important than the care of the perishable goods in the shop?

Mr. Macquisten: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the shopkeepers that if they would provide their assistants with proper cardigans or other warm wear they would not get cold?

PROSECUTION (STRATFORD POLICE COURT).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Victor Punshon, of 125, Church Road, Leyton, was charged with theft at Stratford Police Court, on Friday, 12th February, and that the bench decided there was insufficient evidence to convict; whether he has examined the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence against him; whether he is aware that five witnesses are prepared to testify that the accused was engaged at his father's shop during the time of the alleged offence; and whether, in view of the legal expenses in which this man and his father were involved, he will see that the innocent man receives adequate compensation?

Mr. Lloyd: Inquiries have been made about this case, and I understand an application was made to the Court on behalf of the defendant for costs and the application was refused. It does not appear to be a case for any action by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second case of the kind which has occurred in my constituency within the last few weeks: is he further aware that this particular accused person left the court, in the words of the bench, "without a stain on his character"; and as the man has been involved in an expenditure of some £15 to £20 is it not desirable that some compensation should be given to him?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think it is a general rule that persons who have been acquitted should have their expenses paid from public funds.

Mr. Sorensen: Surely the hon. Member must realise that we want it to be appreciated that justice is done in this country, and that it will not be appreciated if some compensation is not paid.

QUARTER SESSIONS (COUNSEL).

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal delivered on 24th February in the case of Rex v. Riordan; and whether he proposes to issue a circular as to the desirability of instructing counsel to prosecute at quarter sessions in all cases where the liberty of young persons is concerned?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has seen a Press report of the judgment in the case referred to. As regards the second part of the question, he has no authority to issue a circular to courts of quarter sessions in the sense suggested, but I have no doubt that due note will have been taken of the dicta of the Court of Criminal Appeal in this case, and that suitable arrangements will be made to meet the criticisms to which it gave rise.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir James Arthur Salter, for the University of Oxford.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE BUSINESS).

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Half-past Seven of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 6, any such Private Business may be taken after Half-past Nine of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report relative to the Annual Holiday Bill.

Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

ANNUAL HOLIDAY BILL.

Reported, so far as amended, from Standing Committee A; to lie upon the Table.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.

Ordered,
That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to Mr. Edward Cliffe Vigors, C.B., Principal Clerk of Private Bills and Private Committees, to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports."—[Sir Francis Fremantle.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the description of the persons with whom arrangements may be made under the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, for the dispensing of medicines." [National Health Insurance Act (Amendment) Bill [Lords].

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1935.

3.48 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move:
That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Additional Days and Waiting Period) Order, 1937, laid before Parliament on the twenty-third day of February in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved.
The House will remember that under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, a Statutory Committee was appointed charged with the performance of statutory duties in connection with the Insurance Fund. One of those duties was to make an annual report upon the financial condition of the Fund. Since that time the House has received four reports from that committee. It would not be in order for me to discuss the details of those reports, except in so far as they have a bearing upon the Order which I now move. The first report was in the nature of a preliminary survey of the problem. In it the committee promised to present an additional report six months afterwards. That report was duly made, and recommended an increase of is a week in children's allowances, raising them from 2s. to 3s. In the following year, last year, the third report was made, and that recommended a reduction in the contributions all round by id., at a cost of £6,500,000 a year. The report on which this Order is based was presented 10 days ago as a result of the committee's survey of the working of the fund during the last calendar year, and it is as a result of their examination of the state of the fund that I move this draft Order to-day.
Let me outline the financial basis of this Order. The fact that we can lay such proposals before the House for its approval is eminently satisfactory. It is not merely an outstanding comment upon the wonderful industrial recovery that has been taking place throughout the country, and that has resulted in increased employment and a decrease of unemployment, but it is proof that the foundations of Part I of the Act of 1935 were well and truly laid. Not merely is there a surplus in the Fund, but the committee are in the position to recommend to the Government and to Parliament an alteration of the conditions

respecting unemployment benefit, but not by reduction of contributions or increases of benefit, as has been the case in the two previous reports.
I would point out to the House that the committee reported receipts for 1936 amounting to £65,707,238, that is to say, nearly £i,000,000 more than in the previous year, despite the fact that from 7th July of last year, or for nearly half a year, there has been a reduction of 1d. on the contribution from the employers, the workers and the State. The expenditure totalled £48,000,000, or £6,045,000 less than in 1935, a situation which is due to the increase of employment and the decrease of unemployment. The committee report that the unemployment rate fell from 16.1 per cent. in January, 1936, to 11.9 in August, 1936, whereas the average, instead of being 14.5 for the year as was expected, fell to 13 per cent. The broad result is that the committee were able to report a surplus during 1936 of £17,527,470, so that the cumulative balance at the end of the year was nearly £39,000,000, or £6,700,000 more than the committee had estimated in their previous report.
Those who have studied the report will have noticed that the committee have made three separate analyses of unemployment. They have made an analysis by industries, another by Ministry of Labour divisions—the areas into which the country is divided for the administrative purposes of the Ministry—and a most interesting analysis of unemployment by counties. About that, I would say one thing. The House will have noticed the comment pointing out the unexpected high rate of unemployment and, what is even more important from the point of view of the fund, the unexpectedly high percentage of unemployment ranking for benefit in certain counties, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland and the rural parts of Wales. On this matter there is an interesting passage which I cannot discuss now. I can say only that I have asked the committee to examine the problem further, which they will proceed to do.
My task to-day is easy. I have to recommend to the House to accept the recommendation of the majority of the committee. Two of the members of the committee express a desire for further reductions in contribution or alterations


in the manner of dealing with the debt. The Committee recommend two things, a reduction of the waiting period, which now stands at six days, as it has stood for some years, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, an alteration in the number of additional days which may be added to the period for which men who have had good records of employment may draw benefit. That will have a double effect. In the early stages it may prevent men from applying for unemployment assistance, and in the later stages it will keep them on benefit correspondingly longer, according to the number of added days to which their record of employment entitles them.
The financial basis of these recommendations is as follows: As I have already said, the committee realised a surplus of £6,700,000 over their estimate. As a result of their triple analysis of unemployment by industry, by Employment Exchange divisions and by county, they came to the conclusion that they would have a potential disposable surplus during 1937 of £12,275,000. The £6,700,000 of course, is already realised. As the House knows, the committee have examined all these problems with great vision and clearness, under the able chairmanship of Sir William Beveridge, and they came to the conclusion that it would not be prudent to take into account the full £12,270,000. They recommend that we should proceed on the basis of 8o per cent. of that potential surplus. That percentage means £9,820,000. Add to that the £6,700,000 and we get the figure £16,520,000. That sum, together with interest over the period of eight years during which it is to be spent, means a total disposable non-recurrent surplus of £17,250,000.
Hon. Members will recall from our discussion of the previous Order that the preliminary survey of the committee led them to the belief that it would be prudent and wise in all these recommendations to follow an eight-year cycle. They recommend that the sum of £17,250,000, the total disposable surplus, should be disposed over an eight years' cycle at the rate of £2,250,000 per year. Then they proceed to recommend, as I have told the House, that the surplus should be disposed of in those two forms, by taking three days off the waiting

period, and providing a certain number of extra additional days at the end of the period of benefit. On the latter point, the committee indicate that it would have been possible to add days of benefit in terms of two weeks additional to the standard period of 26 weeks, but they preferred this way, as being a much more effective and beneficial use of the sum of money. My recommendation, if the House passes, as I have no doubt it will, this Draft Order, is that the shorter waiting period should become effective as from the 25th March.
I do not think I need to labour the point. The committee are quite clear that evidence was laid before them showing a great body of opinion in favour of this reform. More than that; the position with regard to the waiting period is not quite the same as it used to be before the operation of the Unemployment Assistance Board under Part II of the Act of 1934. Previous to that, the argument always was that it was better for a man to have six waiting days at the end of a long period of employment, as the money thus saved could be used for extending the period of benefit. The man now goes straight to the Unemployment Assistance Board when he runs out of benefit, and the argument has not the same force.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Easter holiday count as these three waiting days?

Mr. Brown: I will look into that point and let the hon. Member have an answer before the Debate ends. I think that this reform will be universally approved by the House and I shall be indeed disappointed if the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who I understand is to follow me, does not agree with it heartily—that is the reduction of the waiting period by three days. There is another point on which I desire to say a few words. At the moment when a man has 30 contributions in two years he may draw 26 weeks' benefit, or 156 days' benefit; but if he has good employment over five years he may have three additional days added for every five contributions, less one additional day for every five days' benefit drawn. I think I can make it clear in another way. The right hon. Member for Wakefield knows that my statement is accurate, but the worst of all these things is that they are technical and involve a certain amount of insurance jargon.
Let me give two illustrations of a simple character which will make clear what this reform will do. You alter the ratio of days substracted from one in five to one in eight. That is the simple explanation. I have got out two cases which will show hon. Members precisely how the change will work out. A man with an average of 40 stamps a year, which means 200 stamps in five years, and who has worked zoo weeks, will have drawn an average of II weeks' benefit each year. Of 12 weeks of unemployment, one week will not count because it is a waiting week. He will have drawn 55 weeks' benefit. At present if he has worked 40 weeks for five years, that is 200 weeks, he will be able to draw 54 additional days. Under the alteration, altering the divisor from five to eight, instead of adding 54 additional days you add 79. It really is quite simple. The hon. Member for Hems-worth (Mr. G. Griffiths) now has it quite clear, I think. The effect of this arrangement upon a man who has worked on the average 40 weeks for five years will be that whereas now he gets 54 additional days added to the 26 weeks, he will in future get 79 days added.
But here is an even more striking illustration. If the average were 35 stamps for 35 weeks' work, with i6 weeks of benefit over the past five years, a man can qualify now for nine additional days, but under the new scheme he will qualify for 45 additional days, which means of course that he will have nearly six weeks longer of benefit. If he falls out of work then he will have six weeks longer on the fund than under the present arrangement. I think that on reflection hon. Members will see that that method of adding additional days will be much more effective and beneficial for those who have good records of employment than an all-round distribution would be. The three days off the waiting period will, it is estimated, cost £9,700,000 over the eight years, or £1,225,000 per annum; and the three days added to the additional days, taking a ratio of eight days instead of five, will cost nearly £8,000,000 over the eight years, or about £1,000,000 a year.

Mr. Duncan: Will those additional days be cumulative or must they all be

taken in one year? Can they be saved up?

Mr. Brown: They count, of course, against the man's record. So the thing is cumulative in that way. That, I think, is a clear explanation of the proposal and its effects, and I feel sure that it is satisfactory to hon. Members in all parts of the House. A Minister is always glad when standing at this Box to be able to recommend to the House on behalf of the Government of the day the things which, when he sat in Opposition, he used to argue in favour of, and that is my happy lot to-day.

Mr. Roland Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the number of men who will be affected by the proposals with regard to additional days?

Mr. Brown: I have not got the calculations with me at the moment.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman in winding up his speech made a confession, because when this question was previously before the House I reminded him of the time when he stood on this side of the House, on the third bench below the Gangway, as the great champion of the unemployed. We have got rid of that illusion. To-day we find the right hon. Gentleman sitting next to the Minister of Health. To both of the right hon. Gentlemen I have had to reply within the last week, that neither of them understands the formula under which he is working. I will say this for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health: His formula is a statutory one; he is not a rubber stamp. The rubber stamp was put on by this House, and therefore I acquit the right hon. Gentleman. I said what I thought about him last week. The Minister of Labour has asked the House to accept the findings of the Statutory Committee. Is a Statutory Committee to become a dominating factor in this House? The last time it reported the Minister of Labour came to the House very meekly and said, "I, a Minister of the Crown, am the rubber stamp of the Statutory Committee." Now he comes and asks us to accept the findings of the Statutory Committee. I am glad he did it in this case; I am sorry he did it last time.
At the beginning I want to enter my protest against Ministers of the Crown meekly accepting the advice which is given to them. As the right hon. Gentleman has told us, these questions are of ten very technical. It is a common device of Ministers to try to baffle the House by saying, "Well, this is a very difficult question. There is a formula. There is something very complicated. There are very difficult regulations." But this question is not technical. It is dealing with people who are out of work, and it is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to come down to the House and talk about the divisor and subtracting additional days, which to me seems to be confused mathematics. The right hon. Gentleman has not enlightened us on what is the primary problem with which the House is faced. On the last occasion when he came to the House, again putting his rubber stamp on the report of the Statutory Committee, he came with a proposal that there should be a penny reduction in the contribution. That we opposed because, although we thought the rates of contribution are far too high, we said that a penny reduction per week was a penny wasted on the part of every insured person, and that millions of pennies per week kept in the pool and distributed to the unemployed would be something substantial. This time the right hon. Gentleman comes with the report of the Statutory Committee, and they have learned wisdom.
What are our suggestions for the surplus which is accruing going to the unemployed? In the report there is a long discussion because two members of the Statutory Committee disagreed with the majority about using the surplus for the reduction of debt. I remember speaking on a previous occasion and explaining that so far as we are concerned we should never agree to using that surplus for debt reduction, never. I object to the principle whereby the National Debt, all of it accumulated for war purposes, should be placed on the backs of the whole of the people, while a debt accumulated during a period of trade depression should have to be borne only one-third by the State and two-thirds by the people in industry. I am glad to think that the Statutory Committee finally disposed of the idea that any contributions should be used beyond the statutory 5,000,0030 a year, which seems to me to be an outrage—that

any funds should be used beyond that for debt reduction.
We do, of course, approve the shortening of the waiting period; there can be no doubt about that. I spoke upon that subject when this matter was last before the House. I am only too sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to apply that to agriculture. I think there has been some misunderstanding about it. I have the correspondence here, and if the Minister would like me to read it I will read it. It will be found in the report that the National Federation of Employers' Associations was asked to give evidence and the Trades Union Congress General Council was asked to give evidence. They gave evidence, and it has been made perfectly clear by the Trades Union Congress and by the organisation representing the agricultural workers that, when the Trades Union Congress said they were in favour of shortening the waiting period, that included agriculture. I think, therefore, that, in view of the type of scheme that we now have for agriculture, something of a gesture to these people might have been made by shortening the waiting period of them also.
While we welcome the shortening of the waiting period—it was a Labour Government that first introduced it and brought the period down to three days—we do not regard that as being too generous a contribution to the solution of the problem of the unemployed, though I agree that there are numbers of people who fall out of work and for whom the immediate urgency of money in the home is a matter of very considerable importance. There is a table in the Report of the Statutory Committee which shows how long unemployed persons have to wait before they can receive benefit. It is true, as they say, that a family may perhaps have secret hoards of wealth on which they can maintain themselves; it is true, as they say, that, if there is nothing of that kind, there is the Poor Law; but at the same time it is equally true that small wage-earners ought, when they fall out of work, to be able to enjoy their benefit without a long delay.
Of course we agree also to any lengthening of the period of payment to people who are out of work. The right hon. Gentleman has explained to us in the most convincing terms—as convincing


as those used by the Minister of Health in defining his formula last week—how this is going to work, and I thank the Committee for that. I think it is good that people who have been out of work and enjoy their benefit for 26 weeks should have that period extended. But I am bound to point out that what is being done under these proposals is not to help the people who have been out of work longest, but to do something for the people who have been lucky in the past. It is not for us on this side of the House to look the gift horse in the mouth; we are grateful for the fact that people are going to get more than 26 weeks' benefit; but we are bound to point out also that the people who are getting this extension, hard though their cases may be, are not the people who really ought to be the care of the Minister of Labour and the Statutory Committee.
I want to put some general principles to which we on this side of the House are committed. We opposed the reduction of contributions last time, and we shall continue always to oppose any proposals for the reduction of contributions until the unemployed are dealt with fairly. We would rather that our people paid their penny than that unemployed people should be dealt with in the miserly fashion which appears to be the idea of this Government. We oppose the whole basis of the proposals which are now in operation for making unemployment insurance a business proposition, which it can never be. It does not matter whether it is unemployment insurance, the Unemployment Assistance Board, or the Poor Law; the community somehow has to pay for the unemployed, and nobody will ever find a way of establishing an actuarially sound basis for insurance against unemployment; it cannot be done. We oppose this idea of putting the fund on an actuarial basis by turning people out of it, by shortening the period for which they can get benefit, and by increasing contributions, and we say that, the fund having been established, surpluses, where they accrue, should always go to the advantage of the people who are out of work, and should not be used either for extinguishing debt or for the reduction of contributions. I want the House to understand that, although working people are not well off, they would rather have surpluses used for the advantage of their fellows who are out of work

than have them used for microscopic diminutions in the rate of contributions.
Those benefits from the surpluses can be applied in two ways. The first is by an increase of benefits, and, having regard to what is happening to-day, having regard to the ramp which is going on now because of rearmament, having regard to the fact that there is every prospect of a rise in the cost of living, it is important that the Statutory Committee should consider very seriously the utilisation of future surpluses for raising benefits. When this question was last before the House, I gave the House the cost of raising certain benefits. The costs are not extravagant to the fund, but the value to the people who receive the benefits is inestimable.
In the second place, in addition to raising the rates of benefit to a level which will enable the victims of unemployment to live at a reasonable standard of life, we would ask that there should be an extended period of payment. At present it is 26 weeks, and now the right hon. Gentleman, for the very good boy, for the lucky boy, is extending that a little bit. Our desire is that the period of statutory benefit should be extended so as to diminish the chances of unemployed workers having to go to the Unemployment Assistance Board. We should like to see all unemployed workers, or anyhow the maximum number of unemployed workers, getting their payment by right, and not as a result of inquisition; and it is important, therefore, that this limit of 26 weeks per year, which had not been in operation for years until 1931, should be extended. It is all the more important because of the fact that, as hon. Members will see if they look at the report of the Committee and study the returns of unemployment from the various areas, those areas where unemployment has been most prolonged are the poorest. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say on a future occasion about the question of distressed areas, and I hope I may have something to say too, so I do not want to venture into that question now; but, if the Government mean to do something about the question of distressed areas, it is all the more important that in these very depressed areas where unemployment has been prolonged, where the agony is hopeless and the suffering is indescribable, we should do what we can to restore the self-respect


of the people by lengthening the period for which they can enjoy their statutory right to unemployment benefit without having to go to the Unemployment Assistance Board.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give to me and my friends two pledges. In the first place, although, as I lead the report, the reduction and extinguishment of the debt is a matter for the Board, I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that, so far as he and the Government are concerned, they are going to give no support on any occasion to any proposal to try to extinguish the debt more rapidly by penalising the people who are out of work. If the surplus is used for debt reduction purposes, obviously it cannot be used for the benefit of the people who are out of work. As the report points out, the only advantage that would come from that would come to people who are not yet in the field of industry; the people who will be penalised to-day will be dead by the time the advantage comes from this reduction of the debt. With regard to the second point, which I think is even more important, I would ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary—I do not want to be too friendly to this Government, but I think it would be good from their point of view to make their position clear—to say that, so far as the Government are concerned, the accruing surplus on the fund shall, as a matter of policy, be used in the interests of the people who are out of work—that is to say, that there shall be no talk in the future of debt redemption and there shall be no talk in the future of reducing contributions, much as we want to see the contributions reduced. We should like an undertaking that, so far as there are surpluses, they will be used for the people who are unemployed.
I am glad to think that speeches made on this side of the House on the last occasion have come true. We pleaded then for a shortening of the waiting period; we pleaded then for a rise in benefits; we pleaded then for a lengthening of the period of statutory benefit; and we were given a penny reduction, for which we offered the Government no thanks. On this occasion we have at least got two minor concessions, or, perhaps I should say, one major concession and one minor concession. We have got a shortening of the waiting period, for which we are all grateful, and we

have got, for some people, a lengthening of the period during which they can enjoy benefit. That is an acceptance of the principle that people ought to have unemployment benefit for a longer period than 26 weeks. I do not thank the right hon. Gentleman specially for what he has done for the few persons who will enjoy that concession, but I thank him for the acceptance of the principle that 26 weeks' benefit is not long enough.
In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for this in very moderate and restrained tones—because I am not too generous in my thanks, as he knows—I should like a declaration before we end the Debate on this matter of principle as to whether the surplus on a fund designed primarily in the interests of the unemployed shall in future always be used in the interest of the unemployed and not for ulterior motives, which may please employés and taxpayers, but which are not in the interests of the unemployed workers themselves. No working man or woman who contributes to the unemployment insurance scheme will ever complain when in work as to what the people who are out of work get out of it. They are only concerned for their fellows who are out of work, and for their own future if they should fall out of work. In that sense they are public spirited. In that sense they are generous. I have done my best in such feeble words as I can command to fling back the penny reduction last time in the right hon. Gentleman's teeth. We do not want pence. We want a fair and square deal for the unemployed, and the workers, within their limits, rather than see an injustice to their fellows who are out of work, are prepared to pay for it.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: When my right hon. Friend last year commended to the House the recommendations of the Statutory Committee for the third period, we were obliged to oppose them and we urged proposals which are substantially comprised in the recommendations which the committee have now made, and which he in turn recommends to the House to-day. It has been my lot and that of my hon. Friends more often than not to oppose and criticise proposals made by my right hon. Friend since he became Minister of Labour and also by


his predecessor. It is, therefore, some small personal satisfaction on this occasion to find that there is something with which I can cordially agree, and I therefore have pleasure in saying so.
The House may congratulate itself on the form in which the report is made. The Minister is free to reject or accept the Committee's recommendations, and the House may or may not agree with him, but it is of very considerable assistance to have the facts placed before us in the concise and clear way in which they are set forth. There is no uncertainty as to the recommendations, neither is there any ambiguity in the statement of the reasons which led the Committee to make those recommendations. Of course, we welcome the proposal to reduce the waiting period and put it back to three days, as proposed in the Act of 1920. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) referred to the fact that in the Act of 1924 the waiting period was reduced for a time to three days, and I have a small personal interest in that matter. An Amendment moved by my friend Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, whose efforts on behalf of the unemployed will be remembered by all who sat in the House with him, by myself and by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), to reduce the waiting period from six days to three, was accepted by Mr. Tom Shaw, the then Minister of Labour. I regret that the Conservative Government in 1925 or 1926 put the period back to six days. No one who is acquainted with the working of the waiting period can but rejoice to see it cut down to three days. One is familiar with the argument that households are supposed to have sufficient money in hand to carry them over the period of six days, but people are apt to forget that the six days may be as many as 15.
That is a very serious matter and, in my observation, the cases in which help is needed are nearly always urgent cases. They often occur at the week end, and it is difficult, even with the good will of the public assistance people, in fact it is impossible in every case, to get real wants satisfied. I am by no means satisfied that the Minister may not find it expedient in the very near future to do away with it altogether. It is true that those who in future fall out of employ-

ment will have the right of going to the Unemployment Assistance Board to ask for any help that may be necessary to tide them over the period, but we have to bear in mind that there will be an entirely new situation after 1st April, when there will be coming on to unemployment assistance a number of individuals, 200,000, or perhaps nearer 300,000, who, without having paid a contribution to the Unemployment Fund in their lives, will be entitled to benefit at any time when they may be out of work without any waiting period at all. The Statutory Insurance Fund will have to face up, for the first time on a large and growing scale, to the competition of the Unemployment Assistance Board in this matter, and it will be very difficult for men coming to the same Employment Exchange to understand why other individuals who, perhaps less fortunate than themselves, or black coated workers and therefore unable to qualify, without having paid a contribution and without a waiting period get benefits equal to theirs, or perhaps even larger. This is a matter to which the Minister will have to give his attention in the very near future. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he was inviting the Committee to consider further the investigation that they suggested into the stabilisation of unemployment in the most favourable areas at a ratio of from 5 to 7 per cent. That is a figure which, in the present state of industry, we cannot accept. We ought by this time to be endeavouring to extricate ourselves from the fatalism associated with the idea of the trade cycle. I am sure that there is a necessity for an intensive study of that matter.
I should like my right hon. Friend to ask the Committee to pay particular attention to the question of long-term unemployment. There we have one of the gravest things in the unemployment problem to-day. Sir William Beveridge has rendered a public service by drawing attention to the terrible increase that has taken place in the amount of long-term unemployment. In September, 1936, as the Minister reminded us, the percentage of unemployment over the whole country was 11.9 per cent., and in September, 1926, it was 9.8 per cent. There has, therefore, been between those two dates an increase in unemployment of 275,000 persons. The terrible fact about that


increase of 275,000 on the live register is that it is less than the addition to the numbers of those who have been unemployed for more than a year in the whole period. That is a terrible figure. It is, therefore, true to say that at present there is much less unemployment of those who have been unemployed for less than six months, but there is no less than six and a half times as much unemployment among those who have been out for 12 months than there was in 1929. In dealing with the live register to-day, the Minister and his advisers should concentrate their attention upon what can be done with the long-term unemployed. Sir William Beveridge goes on to say, in the document from which I am quoting:
The perpetual favouring of younger men, merely for their youth, in filling jobs within the competence of older men makes for unemployment. It is an anti-social act and should be recognised as such.
That rather suggests the line on which we should attempt to deal with the problem, and I hope the Statutory Committee will, at the instigation of the Minister if necessary, give full consideration to that. I also hope the Minister will consider whether it is not possible to make some special conditions for the employment of older men who have more than 12 months' unemployment in the allocation of work on Government contracts.
I am in substantial agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in his observations with regard to the repayment of the debt I shall continue to oppose any proposals for the reduction of the debt which are not accompanied by some substantial benefit to those at present on the Fund. There never was any justification for fixing that sum of £105,000,000 upon the Fund. We accept very gladly the proposal for the extension of benefits, though it brings into sad relief the lot of those of whom I have been speaking, the longterm unemployed. I hope that next year my right hon. Friend may be able to propose some further amelioration in the lot of the unemployed. I think in any further distribution of surpluses that may accrue it must be concentrated upon the improvement of benefit, and I think dependants' allowances should be the first consideration. We have to bear in mind the very unsatisfactory feature in these scales, both of the Unemployment Assistance Board and statutory benefit,

that they do not in fact supply the bare minimum required for help in families of three children and more. That is not a position which can be accepted by any Government which proposes to lead the country in a national campaign of physical fitness. That, I think, should be the foundation stone of any campaign of physical fitness, and if the Government put that to the country they would have overwhelming support for it. The Unemployment Assistance Board, when drawing up their scales, rejected the idea of relating them to the British Medical Association scale of bare necessities or the Ministry of Health scale, or even, I believe, the League of Nations scale, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend, in consultation with the Minister of Health, whom I am glad to see in his place, to take steps to see that there is a scale of minimum needs for health drawn up in which they would have confidence, so that this question of scales on one side or the other may be settled beyond the limits of speculation and conjecture. It is not fair in these days that the matter should be left in that way. It is a lamentable fact that the poorest people in this country to-day, whether they are in work or whether they are out of work, are in the main families who have three children or more and it is one which, I hope, will have some attention directed to it.
The Statutory Committee and also the Unemployment Assistance Board have asked that an inquiry should be undertaken—I do not know whether they are competent to undertake it themselves; I do not know that they are—into the relation between the scales of benefit, the unemployment assistance allowance and the lower wage rates. It is a matter of vital importance that close investigation should take place, and also that it should be related to the establishment of some scale of physical needs. I could do nothing more than indicate them here, but it may very well be that such an inquiry might lead to the conclusion that the only way in which the nation can do its duty to these people, who are the poorest in the land, the families with more than three children, is by some scheme of family allowances. The matter should be probed, and should be settled. The campaign of physical fitness can be little more than a mockery as long as something like 250,000 children are maintained on a


scale below the minimum needs of the physical requirements of health.
I am indeed glad that the Statutory Committee rejected the proposal for a further reduction of the contribution for the reason mentioned by my hon. Friend above the Gangway, and also for this additional reason. Unless I am mistaken, an increase in contributions to the Statutory Fund can only be made for the purpose of removing a deficit in that fund, and if further reduction had been made, it would have limited the field of manoeuvre open to Parliament and the Statutory Committee with regard to the increase in the general scale of benefits, which may, indeed, become a matter of urgent and practical importance, if the rise in the cost of living, which is already noticeable, proceeds much further. I hate to appear anywhere, least of all in the House of Commons, as a prophet, but it seems to me that the inevitable consequence of the damping down of civil industry which is taking place in this country to-day, accompanied by an increased distribution of spending power to the communities in the industrial areas, must have the inevitable results of sending up prices in general at a rapid rate, and this matter of the increase of benefits may become an urgent and practical matter before many months are over.
I have expressed the maximum amount of satisfaction that I feel with the proposals which have been laid before the House, and, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, we accept them, but I hope that the fact that the Minister has been able to make a satisfactory proposal to the House to-day will not cause him to feel that it exonerates him from further efforts. I would say, in particular, that I hope he does not feel that he is absolved from the necessity of carrying out the undertaking with regard to the raising of the age limit for black-coated workers and others. Some of us have been a good deal puzzled to know why we have not been informed of what is to be done in that direction. It may be the wish of the Minister to see the development of Unemployment Assistance Regulations after 1st April, before he decides, but I hope that it will not be long before he tells us what he proposes to do in that direction. My concluding words are that we are looking into a very uncertain future in

which we can see little more in the sky than question marks, but I express the hope that in 12 months' time we may not be in a less favourable position than that which we are in this afternoon.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. R. Robinson: It is a striking commentary on the success of the policy of the Government for the reduction of unemployment that for the second year in succession the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, in its report to the House, can tell us that the surplus which last year was £6,500,000 has increased this year to £17,200,000, I feel sure that the Minister, when Members from all sides of the House have spoken, cannot but be impressed with the fact that everyone is satisfied with the way in which the surplus is being disposed of to-day. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) had to express agreement with what was being done, though he was not, of course, generous in the way that he did it. Indeed he told the House that if possible he did not want to be friendly to the Government, but later he welcomed the proposals that came from the right hon. Member the Minister of Labour. I feel certain that if he had been the Minister and had been able to come to the House and make proposals such as we have heard to-day, the ranks of the party opposite would have cheered themselves hoarse, and we should have been told that Utopia was at last coming into being.
Generally speaking, I feel that the proposal for reducing the waiting time and increasing the additional days will meet with great satisfaction, because it will give help to the unemployed man when he needs it, at the beginning when he is faced with the period of transition and has to turn over his way of living from being supported by a good wage to the much smaller unemployment allowance. It is good to help him at that end because that is the time when his savings, if he has any, are probably exhausted. I invite the Minister to investigate a little further the one question which I asked him as to the number of people who will benefit under this proposal. He told me that the figures were not in his possession. I believe that the figures must be available, because the committee in making its recommendations gave the cost of the recommendations and


they must have got that cost from the number of people that they thought would be affected by the scheme. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to enlighten the House on that particular point.
I am one of those who for a long time have said that, in order to make the Unemployment Insurance scheme as satisfactory as it can be, it should have the widest possible extension so as to cover if possible the whole of the unemployed. That surely is the ideal at which the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee ought to aim. In that connection I am going to press upon the Minister once again the fact that he ought to try and do something to deal with as many as possible of the anomalies in the scheme. Last year I pressed upon him the case of the seasonal worker, and since then nothing has been done in order to mitigate that case. There is there a very real sense of grievance because you have men every year who, in their very short period of work, are paying their contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and then, when they are thrown out of work, as they must inevitably be at the end of the season, are told that they can draw no benefit which they have paid for because they have not had a sufficient number of weeks in work. I say quite frankly that the assistance that was given in this matter two years ago has been of very real benefit, which perhaps is not generally appreciated all over the country. On the other hand, the effect really has been to make what was a big sore into a small sore, and so long as that sore remains, there is bound to be a great deal of irritation on the part of the people concerned.
I hope that next year, when the Fund will be in an even better position than it is to-day, the committee will consider the position of the seasonal worker and remove that sore altogether. It is a point which has been felt all over the country. Certainly in every seaside and health resort in England there is almost a unanimous opinion that something ought to be done in this matter. Last year I was one of those who disapproved of the recommendations that were made by the committee, and I pointed out to the House that the committee had approached the question of Unemployment Insurance entirely from the wrong angle, and that in their report they had stated

that unemployment insurance was a tax on industry and was therefore to them an undesirable form of taxation. I say that it was entirely wrong that they should have preferred the principles of relief to the principles of insurance. So last year, believing that it was undesirable taxation, they took the step of recommending a reduction in the payments. The committee pointed out to the House that the choice between reduction of payments and increased benefits was a major point of social policy for which the responsibility rested on the House of Commons, and in approving the recommendations to-day I feel that the House ought to realise that it is making a major change in its policy with regard to Unemployment Insurance as compared with what was done last year. I agree with that change in policy. I believe that it has been proved that industry can bear the cost of Unemployment Insurance in both good times and in bad, and I hope that we shall continue to use the money for increasing the scope of the scheme, and that we shall have the foundation and the continuance of the finest piece of social legislation the world has known.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I rise to offer a comment or two on the Motion which is before the House. The present Minister of all the Ministers of Labour seems to have all the breaks with him, and the others have had the breaks the opposite way. While no one can vote against this Motion to-day, there are one or two points of criticism which ought to be stated. I wish to make a point which I have made in previous Debates, and it is one which now is never mentioned, namely, that the unemployed have never had their cuts restored. I am surprised how easy it has been to forget that the unemployed are the only section that have not had their cuts restored. The Minister comes before the House to-day, and, from his point of view, prides himself on the two concessions which he is making in regard to the waiting period and the payment of more standard benefit for certain classes of people.
Let me remind the House that the unemployed were attacked from many angles when the cuts were imposed. Perhaps the greatest cut of all was when the unemployed had their standard bene-


fit cut for a period that could extend roughly to a year and four months. A person was entitled to standard benefit if he had 30 stamps in two years, which gave him a balance of a year and four months. That was cut down to 26 weeks as part of the economy cuts which were introduced, and it is the only economy cut which has not been restored. Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament, and the ordinary unemployed person with a special record, have all had their cuts restored, but the unemployed person, who is less fortunate, is the only person who has never had the cuts restored. When we are discussing improvements in trade and the marvellous figures of income and expenditure, when this year we can afford hundreds of millions for Defence or arms, we cannot afford to restore to the unemployed the cuts which the so-called crisis of 1931 imposed. Therefore, while we are priding ourselves, let us remember that the unemployed are still far from having their cuts restored. The system of requiring 3o stamps in two year was not merely the act of a Government but the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Commission, which was ultimately put into legislative form, and to-day we still refuse to restore the cut.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said that he wished people would not always accept the recommendations of committees. I, too, wish that they would not do so. When the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues held office I said that they accepted the recommendations of committees which I thought were indefensibly wrong in regard to the Anomalies Act. Some of the worst features of the Anomalies Act are still there. True, they have been modified, but I could wish that some of those cuts could be reconsidered. I should like, in passing, to protest against the idea that Sir William Beveridge is the one person to make the law of the land. It would appear that his recommendations are in fact the law in many cases. He supplies the law. He recommended the reduction in contributions. The same man whom we are praising to-day recommended the cut in contributions. What he recommended we accepted because of the feeling that when Sir William Beveridge and 'his committee meet in a little room in Whitehall and make recommendations, the House of Commons has

to accept them. I do not take the view that Sir William Beveridge is the last word in intelligence, but the idea does seem to be prevalent that he is the one man who can run a Government Commission, for he is appointed chairman of this, that and the other.
May I contrast the position to-day with that of last year? To-day we are reducing the waiting period from six to three days, and making certain minor adjustments of standard benefit, but will hon. Members please note the difference between this year and last year? Last year we had a surplus of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. That surplus was used up in the one year. We used it to give back contributions in the one year. This year we have a surplus of £17,000,000, but we are not using that surplus in one year for increases of benefit. The £17,000,000 surplus is to be spread over eight years. We are using only a little over £2,000,000 each year. Will hon. Members note the contrast? When it was a question of returning money to the State and the employers and a small sum to the workers, we used up the surplus in one year, but when it is a question of improving the benefits the surplus has to be spread over eight years.
It seems to me that Sir William Beveridge and his Committee think that this course is inevitable and that we cannot trust to using up the £17,000,000 this year in improving benefit but must spread it over eight years because a cycle seems to be inevitable. Why has that been done? The Minister says, and I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will say the same thing, that the reason is that once we have reduced the waiting period we do not want to have to go back to the six days waiting period, and that this proposal gives a guarantee for the next eight years that the waiting period will remain as proposed. It does give that guarantee, provided that for the eight years trade remains as it is. It gives no further guarantee, and it is possible that at the end of the eight years we may have to alter the waiting period. This year there are claimant demands of the unemployed to be met. The first is the restoration of the cut which has never been made.
Secondly, let hon. Members not forget that when we are talking about what happened in 1924 and to-day the man's benefit in 1924 was 18s. and the woman's


benefit 15s. The man's benefit is now only 17s. I can never understand why a woman should be paid 2s. less than a man. We hear very often about our standard of life for men, women and children, but the greatest tragedy is the lot of the single woman living in lodgings. It is a shocking tragedy in our great towns that in these days when we have a surplus of £17,000,000 we should ask the single woman to maintain herself on 15s. a week. It is a shocking disgrace. I think that we ought to have used all the £17,000,000 this year.
We are told that the debt must continue to be paid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is still exacting his pound of flesh. In addition to demanding the repayment of the debt he is demanding that interest at the rate of 3⅛ per cent. should be paid. If we are to repay that money is there any reason why we should pay interest at that rate? Let hon. Members contrast that treatment with the Government's treatment of the armaments people. The debt of £105,000,000 was accumulated in a few years. If unemployment assistance had been based as it is now, that debt would never have accumulated. On no sense of decency can I see any justification for this sum being repaid. If the fund had not met that £105,000,000 of debt either the local authorities would have had to meet it or the State would have had to meet it. Somebody would have had to meet it, because no one could imagine that the unemployed would have to do without the money.
In 1929 I, with one of the hon. Members for Nottingham, was told that the waiting period could not be reduced because the people had money at the beginning and they did not need it then. Now we are told that it is at the beginning that they need it. They need it at the beginning and the end. Part of this is merely a saving to the national Exchequer. Under the Unemployment Assistance Act a large number of the unemployed had to be paid in the early weeks, particularly men who were working for a small wage with wives and families. I could never understand why there should be a waiting period at all. I think that when a man is unemployed he should be paid benefit, and I trust the time will come when the waiting period will be eliminated entirely.
We cannot divide against this Motion, although we may be critical as to the way the money is being spent. I think we should have used this £17,000,000 to wipe out the waiting period entirely, raise the benefits to single men and women, and also to wipe out the means test for larger numbers of people. As long as the Government propose to build navies and equip armies trade will be good, and the working-class people will benefit, but I fear what is to happen in the future, as does also Sir William Beveridge. I look forward with a good deal of foreboding to the days to come. While we accept this small sum we are not in any way satisfied with it, and trust that the working people of the country will not take it as anything like a satisfactory solution of the present unemployment problem, but will continue to press their legitimate demands for the abolition of the means test and the raising of unemployment benefit to a figure which will represent a much more humane standard than the present.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Hayday: I want to support some of the criticisms which have been made with respect to these proposals. I feel that it is wrong in principle to place upon the surplus of the contributory Unemployment Fund the onus of having to wipe out the whole of a debt created at a time of national emergency. In 1920 and 1921 the Government of the day had to come to this House on three or four occasions for powers to raise money to meet the calls of those who were on unemployment benefit, and at that time there were thrown on to the Unemployment Fund large bodies not only of workmen but of ex-Service men for whom the State had accepted the responsibility for their weekly benefit. They were thrown on to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which had a surplus at its disposal. The Government of the day to ease their own responsibilities took the surplus from the Fund and created a very heavy debt, and they are now fastening that debt upon the shoulders of those who have been heavy contributors to the Fund. It will mean a drag being put on any possible surplus accruing when there are bodies of men and women in employment. I fear that as long as the Unemployment Insurance Fund is based on actuarial calculations we shall have these difficulties


periodically. I am very much concerned with one or two matters mentioned in the report. I should like the Minister to inform the House whether he has any right to veto or alter any of the recommendations which the Statutory body may make.

Mr. E. Brown: It is the duty of the Minister, if he disagrees with any representations of the Committee, to state his reasons and to lay them before the House. Indeed, on one occasion I disagreed with one of their recommendations, and it was not pursued.

Mr. Hayday: Does that power of disagreement also enable the Minister to question the basis upon which the disposable surplus is arrived at, or must he accept the actuarial figures supplied to him? Is there any ratio definitely set as to how much of the disposable surplus is to go for the benefit of the unemployed and how much is reserved for other purposes, including that of debt?

Mr. Brown: That is a statutory responsibility of the board.

Mr. Hayday: I notice that the accumulated reserve will rise from 21,450,000 to £37,950,000, out of which it is proposed to put £17,000,000 to benefits, leaving still £20,000,00 to be carried forward. That £17,00,000 represents the disposable surplus of two years' working of the fund, and that two years' surplus is to be spread over eight years. It is fair to assume that with the present rate of employment there will accrue certainly a further £9,000,000 a year. That is one reason why we are criticising, I will not say the shortcomings but the restricted scope of the recommendations of the board in suggesting that only three out of the six waiting days should be abolished and that there should be an extension of benefits only to those having a large amount of reserve credit standing to their name. I was one of the representatives from the Trade Unions Council before the board, and we suggested that if the disposable surplus would permit there should be a total abolition of the waiting period. I believe that if the amount of 17,000,000 available for disposal had not been spread over a period of eight years there would be ample surplus to enable the board, if they had felt so in-dined, to abolish the whole of the waiting period.
We were asked what was the order of preference we would propose, and we said, first, the abolition of the waiting period, and, secondly, an increase of benefits. Then we were asked, assuming that there was not sufficient to bring about any general increase in benefits, what would we suggest to enable benefits to be increased, and we said then, as I say now, that there should at least be an increase in the benefits for dependent children. Then other questions were put to us as to whether we really thought benefits should be increased to such an extent that the margin between the week's wage of a man at work and the benefit would be so small that there would be less incentive on the part of an unemployed person to secure work. Our answer to that, and our answer to the Minister to-day, is that if you withhold an increase of benefit for fear that it will clash with wages paid by employers who are sweating the workers you will be lending yourselves to a still further lowering of the standards of living.
We decline to accept that as a reasonable argument. Had the disposable surplus been restricted to a shorter period, it would certainly have made possible an increase in benefits, if not in general, at least to the dependants of unemployed persons. The argument was put forward that, if one takes the case of a man having a wife and five or six children and if one bears in mind that there are still some employed people who receive only 32s. or 33s. a week, such an unemployed man would be placed in a privileged position. That is an argument which I do not think any sane person will accept, for there is no logic about it. I wish to impress upon the Minister that in future, if there are disposable surpluses available, we shall ask that they shall not be spread over so long a period, but that they shall be made available for the immediate alleviation of distress among the families of the unemployed. As one hon. Member has already said, it is more a problem of the middle-aged than it is of the younger men. The prospects of an unemployed man who is over 40 years of age ever again securing employment are very remote. Employers are quite frank on this, and ask why they should take on men who are past 4o years of age when they can get men of 25 and 3o years of age who have all the virility of young


manhood. The middle-aged man is in the main the family man, and consequently pressure is hardest on the homes of those men who have only remote chances of being able to get employment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) called attention to the fact that, in the agricultural section of the report, there is no provision for a reduction of the waiting period. It is stated that no representation was made on that matter. I must inform the Minister, as I believe he has been informed already, that when we appeared before the Statutory Committee, we made a general request for the abolition of the waiting period. It is true that as long as there are separate schemes within the Act, there are bound to be anomalies, and it may be true to say that no one section was specially mentioned in connection with the waiting period, but the request was made applicable to all who come within the unemployment insurance scheme. On the question of extending the period, we submitted evidence and were questioned as to whether, as suggested in the report, it would be better to give an extended period to those with good records, or whether we would prefer a general extension of the period. We felt that a general extension would be right. The adoption of the first-mentioned method would mean that the men who had been at work longest would be those who would secure the longest period of benefit, whereas the unfortunate intermittent worker, having short periods of employment and long periods of unemployment, would be the man who would be unable to satisfy the extra qualification.
We are told—and I suppose we must accept it on the basis of these calculations—that there is only a certain amount of money available for disposal in these directions. If my memory serves me rightly, we were informed that it would be possible to extend the benefit only by one or, at the very outside, two weeks. Although that would have been acceptable, we realised the smallness of the extension; but I suggest that at some time or another the House must lay down a policy as to the ratio of allocations of disposable surpluses. It was not right that the amount of £105,000,000 should have been added. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that there has been no restoration of rights as

regards the restricted periods of benefit. In dealing with the unemployment problem, we now seem to be tied for ever to these statistical schemes. Not only have these schemes to be actuarially able to meet current responsibilities, but they must be so restricted as to provide for a measure of debt redemption for which the Fund was never responsible. These actuarial commitments do not belong to the Fund. I would ask the Minister what is the meaning of paragraph 29, which ends with the statement:
Keeping our original estimates of unemployment in 1936–43 as ground-plan, it is as if we had started with an accumulated reserve, not of £21,450,000, but of £37, 950,000. That is the effect of the lower unemployment experienced in 1936 and in prospect for 1937.
Assuming that £17,000,000 is a two years' disposable surplus, what about the other £20,000,000? Is that a carry-forward surplus for emergencies? If that be so, seeing that we are told in the report that any such contingency is not likely to arise at least over a period of eight years and that debt redemption payments are being made, why could not part of that £20,000,000, which is at present included in the £37,000,000, be called a disposable surplus, and thus enable the Minister to abolish the waiting period, to give an extension of benefit and possibly some extension of the period? Apart from those considerations, I can quite conceive the Minister saying that the best possible use has been made of the restricted amount, but our complaint is that the amount has been restricted too much and that there has not been a full utilisation of the available surpluses which have accumulated to the credit of the Fund and which ought to be used at this stage to ease to some extent the position of those drawing unemployment benefit.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: On more than one occasion this afternoon the Minister of Labour has been called a rubber stamp. I would like to point out to the House what is the exact position with regard to the recommendations of the Statutory Committee in order to show that neither my right hon. Friend nor this House is a rubber stamp. I will quote from the 1934 Act, since that Act was passed through this House and the 1935 Act was merely a consolidating Act. Section 17 of the 1934 Act says that if the committee at any time report that the Unemploy-


ment Fund is, or is likely to become insufficient to discharge its liabilities, and is likely to continue to be more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities, it shall make recommendations for amendment, and shall also make an estimate of the effect which the Amendment recommended will have. Within the period of two months of the committee having made its recommendation. the Minister, at the expiration of that period, shall lay the report before Parliament and shall lay the draft of an Order making such amendments as are duly recommended by the report, or, if and so far as any amendment so recommended is not adopted by the Minister, shall make such amendments as will in his opinion have substantially the same effect on the financial condition of the Fund. If and in so far as the amendments proposed by the Draft Order differ from the amendments recommended by the report, he shall make a statement of the reasons for the difference, and then if the House resolves that the draft of the Order laid be approved, the order shall be issued.
That means that the Minister has complete power to disagree with the recommendations of the Statutory Committee and to state his reasons in a Paper laid before the House, and that the House has the right to reject the recommendations, as indeed hon. Members opposite did refuse to accept recommendations last year. Consequently, the idea that my right hon. Friend is a rubber stamp is quite unfounded.

Mr. G. Griffiths: He is this year.

Mr. Duncan: A great deal has been said about the debt. I am not going to insure against the future, as hon. Members opposite have tried to do, but I will simply say that this debt was caused at the time hon. Members opposite were in office—[HON. MEMBERS "No !"] Most of it was, and it mounted up day by day until it reached £110,000,000. I would like to make the conjecture that if hon. Members opposite ever came into office again, they would be very happy to have this Fund solvent, because of the effects of their policy on the country. I rise chiefly, however, to support the recommendation which has been laid before the House by my right hon. Friend. I consider that the reduction of the waiting period is a very good thing and will

be of great benefit to many of the unemployed; but I would like particularly to emphasise the second recommendation as to the additional days' benefit for men having good employment records. I have come across many cases in my own constituency of older men with good employment records when they were young —lorry drivers and such people—who, after 30 years or 40 years with good employment records, have tended to drop out of employment because employers will not take on older men.
My right hon. Friend has given us one or two illustrations this afternoon, and I would like to ask him what effect this second recommendation would have in the case of a man with, say, a 30-years' good employment record. I think my right hon. Friend said that the maximum which could be given at present was two years less two days. This change should make a difference to some of the men with good employment records who are growing old. It should enable them either to continue in benefit or give them time enough to find another job so that they need not come under unemployment assistance at all. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some more information as to the effect of the second recommendation upon cases of this type.

5.46 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I wish to register my disappointment with these recommendations. None of us will grudge the small concessions which are being made to the unemployed, but I suggest that there was an even stronger claim in morality and justice upon this Fund. I think it was the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who pointed out that women get 2S. less than men under the insurance scheme, and receive an amount which is inadequate for their sustenance. As he pointed out, it is a mistake to suppose that the needs of the unemployed woman, and especially of the unemployed woman who has to live alone, are less than those of the unemployed man. Often her need is as great as that of the man because if she eats rather less, her clothes cost rather more, and she finds it more difficult and more expensive to obtain respectable lodgings.
That, however, is not my real point. The scheme of unemployment insurance rests upon actuarial considerations, and benefits should be based on the just


claims of the contributors to a fair return for their contributions rather than on any kind of humanitarian appeal. I do not think the Minister can deny that in the unemployment insurance scheme the women contributors are not getting a fair deal. They are paying out of all proportion to the value of the benefits which they receive, and I challenge the Minister to deny that if the women's contributions were pooled separately and if they were given benefits based solely on the value of those contributions, the amount which they would receive would not only equal the corresponding amount in the case of men but would be considerably higher, because they have a smaller amount of unemployment. I think, however, women would not greatly object to receiving less than they are entitled to, if the Government would only consent to act upon one consistent principle in the matter. Let the Government either treat women as part of the general body of unemployed or treat them separately.
There is a case to be made out for pooling contributions and benefits and letting men and women share and share alike, but, if so, what is the necessity for the inequality between the rates of pay and rates of benefit of men and women respectively? What is the necessity for singling out one class of contributors which does make a heavy claim on the Fund, namely, the married women, and subjecting them to totally different regulations from those which apply to other contributors? The regulations under the Anomalies Act have the effect of ruling out a large number of women who have been paying regularly to the Fund without any chance of getting anything out of it. Wherever the Government can make a profit, either for the State, or for the employers, or for the men workers, by treating women as a separate class they do so, but wherever it pays to treat them as part of one community they are treated accordingly. The result of the present system is that women, regarded as a separate class of contributors, pay enormously more than the benefits which they receive are worth, but they are told that it would be a great shock to public opinion if men and women were charged the same rates of contribution and received the same rates of benefit.
I submit that the first claim upon this surplus ought to have been that of doing

justice to the women contributors, either by equalising the rates of contribution and benefit or, as could have been done at relatively small cost, by leaving the women's contributions where they are and raising their benefits to the same scale as the men's benefits. The Minority Report of the Statutory Committee recommended that the scales of benefit and scales of contribution should be alike for men and women. That would have cost a very small sum, and the reasons given against it were to my mind inadequate. They amounted, as I have said, to the plea that it would be a shock to public opinion if men and women were put on the same level in this respect. Women are less organised than men, and less articulate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the women workers are less articulate than the men workers, and everybody knows it. The woman worker is unselfish and patient, and if she stood up for her rights as effectively as some of the clients of the hon. Members above the Gangway, the organised male trade unionists, stand up for theirs, very different treatment would be meted out to her. As it is, advantage is being taken of her ignorance and her loyalty to the men workers.
Women continue to be charged these rates, which are out of all proportion to anything they get; they are still made the victims of the old game of "heads I win, tails you lose." I am very disappointed that with this large surplus at its disposal, the Statutory Committee should have contented itself with these recommendations. As I say, I do not grudge the concessions which have been made to the men, but justice ought to come before generosity, and the first claim upon this surplus was that of making restitution for what has almost been stolen from the women.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I have never seen the Minister of Labour in a more happy frame of mind since I came to this House than he was in this afternoon. I have seen the right hon. Gentleman in some stormy scenes, but to-day he stood at that Box with the sunshine beaming upon him. But he was wrong when he made the statement that everybody in the House would agree with him upon this matter. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) who, having said his little recitation, has gone from the House, also claimed that everybody was satisfied with the disposal of the surplus, but I think


the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) showed that everybody is not satisfied. I notice that the Minister having said that everybody was satisfied immediately started a "grouse" himself about his own people, and said that seasonal workers ought to have more consideration, and that something ought to be done about it.
The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) spoke about the debt. As Mr. Speaker has said, it is desirable that we should have in this House the "cut and thrust" of debate, and the hon. Member for North Kensington having given the cut, I propose to reply with the thrust. He talks about the debt which the workers owe and which was borrowed from somewhere by successive Governments from 1921 onwards. It is true that the bulk of it was borrowed at the time when we had that great economic blizzard to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) referred. The right hon. Gentleman said that the situation which arose at that time was the result of the blizzard and not the fault of the Labour party, and he made that statement about ten minutes after we had gone out of office, and hon. Members opposite had got into it. The highest amount of debt accumulated under this head was £115,000,000. And remember that it was the debt of the men who had worked and fought during the War, and who had responded to the call to save their country. They came home and there was no work for them, and so they were put on unemployment payment and the debt accumulated until it reached the figure I have mentioned.
I was in the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to reduce the interest on this debt which then stood at 4 per cent. They brought it down to 3⅔ per cent., at which it stands to-day. That is interest on the debt which the unemployed owe. We have paid in interest this year £4,230,646 while the capital repayment was £769,000. We are paying interest to an amount which is about four times as much as the capital repayment, and it will take us until 1973, or 37 years from the time when we started, to pay off the debt. I expect that I shall be dead

by then, but children yet unborn will have to pay that debt. I suppose hon. Members opposite would say that it was a case of the sins of the fathers having to be visited on the children to the third and fourth generations. But that is not the case when foreigners borrow money from us. Italy owed us £608,000,000. A few years ago this country wiped off £528,000,000 of that and she still owes £80,000,000. We did not say to Italy, "You must pay 3⅓ per cent. interest on that debt." France owed us £600,000,000 and the present Secretary of State for Scotland came to that Table and announced a scheme by which it was funded somehow, so that £400,000,000 of it was wiped out altogether. If we can forgive the debts of these people who borrowed money from us during the War, why can we not wipe off this debt?
I come now to a question which has not yet been raised in this Debate. I refer to the case of 1.he boy who starts work at 14, who pays his contribution of 2d. per week while the employer pays 2d. and the State pays 2d., and who has to pay 104 contributions before he is entitled to any benefit in his own right. A person over 16 years who goes into an occupation is entitled to benefit when he has paid for 30 stamps. Suppose a lad pays in 30 stamps from 14 years of age to 14 years and seven months, and he is out of work from then until he is 16 years of age, unless his father is out of work as well as he, he cannot draw benefit. Take the mining industry. I know some fathers and some sons, the latter between the ages of 14 and 16, who are not working on the same shifts. The father works days and the lad works afternoons. I say that unless a lad and his father are playing at the same time, and the father claims unemployment benefit, he cannot get it for his son because fie lad is working. If the lad is playing and the father working, the lad cannot get anything because his father is working; and when they are on opposite shifts, and the boy is working on the day shift and the father playing on the afternoon shift, the father draws part-time unemployment benefit, but when he goes to draw that part-time benefit, he cannot draw for his lad, because that lad has had three days wages. I ask the Minister to remedy that flaw, so that when the father is playing and the lad has put on 30 stamps, the latter shall go on his own account and not depend upon his


father. At present you are victimising a lad like that. He has to pay 104 stamps before he can draw on his own account, whereas a male over 16 can draw when he has got 30 stamps on.
Another point that I would like to raise was referred to by the hon. Member for North Kensington when he spoke about the accumulated fund beside the debt. Anybody can make an accumulated fund if he puts sufficient on the shoulders of the people in the fund to make the accumulation, but the hon. Member did not mention that. The worker was paying 7d., and then the Government said he must pay 10d. He paid 3d. per week more, or over 42 per cent. higher, and that is where you got your accumulation, or a certain amount of it. He is now paying 9d., which is 28.5 per cent. higher than before. "Ah," says somebody, "but he is getting some benefit." Yes, he is. He gets 1s. addition if it is a case of a man, a wife, and one child. Instead of getting 28s., he gets 29s., and the percentage of the 1s. to the 28s. 1s 4 per cent. He gets 4 per cent. increase in his benefit, and he pays 28.5 per cent. increase in his contribution, and that is where the accumulation on the Fund arises. If he was not paying this 2d. addition, then the Fund would be less by something like £5,000,000 a year at the present time, and I ask that the increase of benefit should come where the increase of contributions has been paid.
The hon. Member for the Combined Universities was talking practical common sense. What is 28s. a week for a man with a wife and one child, when he has to pay 12s. 6d. a week rent out of it? There is no man in this House who would like to live on that, and I am glad that I have not to do so. When you face up to facts, 12s. 6d. for rent leaves about 17s. 6d. for three of them to live on—food, clothes, and everything else. Then you say, "We will have physical jerks; we want an Ai nation." You cannot get an A1 nation on starvation like this. Why do they not recommend that it should be increased above 26s.? I know. If the statutory benefit were increased above 26s. and the children's benefit above 3s., the Unemployment Assistance Board could not very well keep down the unemployment assistance scales, and they would have to be lifted up. Hon. Members opposite say that if you lift up the

scales of unemployment benefit very near to the level of wages, nobody will work. Do not take those hon. Members for your looking glass, because I have never met a man yet—and I have had thousands in front of me—who would not work if he had a chance of a job. In the districts where unemployment is so prevalent, if they hear talk of one job, they run for it as hard as they can, and it is a libel on these people to say that, because the unemployment benefit is very near the wage level, they will not work. You are doing well by your British working man when you begin to say that sort of stuff. I say that they will work, that what they want is a chance to work, and I ask the Minister to state why he did not ask the Statutory Committee to raise the amount from 26s. to 28s. or 30s. so that the people would be able to be fit for physical training when called upon.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland: I hope I may be allowed to ask one short question arising out of the smaller report which accompanies the main report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee. The Minister will have noticed with satisfaction that for the two months for which we have figures, the rate of agricultural unemployment has been very substantially less than the anticipated rate on which the finances of the agricultural scheme were based. The figures, as he knows, were 3 per cent. in November and 4.4 per cent. in December, as against an estimated rate of 7.5 per cent. I appreciate very fully the following sentence in the report, that no very definite conclusions can be drawn from these two months' experience, but if the rate continues to be round about 4.4 per cent.—and, after all, December is likely to be one of the worst months—it is clear that we shall be able to keep the scheme solvent with a very much reduced rate of contribution as compared with that which we provided for last year.
The question that I want to ask is, whether the agricultural industry will have to wait until this time next year before a reduction is made in the rate of contribution? Would it be possible, would it be too much, to ask the Statutory Committee to give us an interim report by July? By then all the worst months of the agricultural year will be over, and if they based their figures on their experi-


ence from November to April, they would not be likely to err on the side of optimism. I do not suggest that as early as July it would be possible forthwith to adopt a rate of contribution which could be looked upon as permanent, but it seems to me to be possible that even as soon as July the Statutory Committee might feel that they had had enough experience of the working of the Act to justify them in making some recommendation for a reduction in the contribution from agricultural workers and their employers. If that could be done, I am sure that it would be welcomed by all in the industry, because they are paying a substantial sum out of the rather low remuneration which they receive.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Rowlands: Hon. Members opposite have commented upon the fact that the Statutory Committee has been called upon to report on the financial position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Personally, I think it is a very good thing, because, in the first place, it has enabled the Minister to have a recommendation from people free from the influence of party politics, and inasmuch as he made it clear that the Minister is not bound by the recommendations of the Statutory Committee, but can, if he likes, make recommendations of his own, if he differs from the Committee, I think the situation is very satisfactory. A great deal has been made of the fact that certain benefits were higher some time ago than they are to-day, and it has been stated that the unemployment insurance cuts have not been restored. The House will recollect that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) pointed out that the amount of benefit for men in 1924 was 18s. and that at present it is 17s., but he did not tell the whole story. He forgot to tell the House that a husband and wife's benefit in 1924 was 24s., whereas at the present time it is 26s., and he also forgot to tell the House that In 1924 the child's benefit was 2s. and that it is now 3s. Another fact that he forgot to tell the House was that at that time there was an Amendment moved to the 1924 Insurance Act, which was brought forward by the Labour party, and that when the Amendment was moved that the 2S. should be

made 3s., it was strenuously opposed by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Buchanan: I opposed them on that question, and everybody knows that I did.

Mr. Rowlands: I was going on to say that, although the Government of the day, which was a Labour Government, opposed that increase, the party to which the hon. Member for Gorbals belongs voted unanimously for the increase. But hon. Members who to-day are complaining that benefits ought to be a great deal higher are the very people who lamentably failed when they had the opportunity to improve them.

Mr. Batey: The hon. Member should tell the whole story.

Mr. Rowlands: If I am asked to tell the whole story, the whole story is this: Unfortunately, from 1921 onwards the Unemployment Insurance Fund has been in a deplorable state from an actuarial standpoint, and my sympathy has been with every Government in office which has wanted to pay the benefits which they thought the people ought to have. The position to-day is that, having placed the Fund on a sound financial basis, we are in the happy position of having £17,000,000 at our disposal. The hon. Member for Gorbals has criticised, as he is entitled to do—and there is a great deal of force in his argument—that a greater amount of the surplus was not being spent. I prefer the more conservative method of looking to the future rather than embarking on a policy which we might regret at a very near date, and which would make the position of the worker a great deal more difficult.
The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) referred to the unfair treatment of women, and said that women, according to their contributions, did not receive anything like the proportion that men were receiving. The single man has had to contribute towards the women from 1921. He has paid the same contributions as the married man, but he receives a paltry 17s., while the married man receives 26s., and, if he has one child, 29s.; two children, 32S.; and three children, 35s. There is a principle underlying this practice. All insurance societies


are based upon the strong helping the weak. A man who has been in employment pays a lot more than he will ever get out, and he should consider himself lucky that he has been in employment and is able to help his more unfortunate brother who has been unemployed for a large number of years.
I welcome the recommendation for reducing the waiting period. I am glad to find that the Minister has the right to alter the recommendations of the Statutory Committee. That being so, I should like to suggest that instead of the waiting period being three days in six, any three days within a given period should qualify for benefit. The three days' waiting period in six has hit people in the mining industry very hard. It has been possible to lose two days a week for months and yet men have been unable to qualify for unemployment benefit. I hope that the Minister will alter the Regulations so that any three days over a period of three weeks will qualify as the waiting period. The longer period of benefit will be a very good thing. It has been criticised on the ground that those people who have been longer in employment will get a longer period of benefit, but you could not lay it down that a man who has been working for six months should have a longer period of benefit than the man who has been working six years. I am glad that the new Regulations will make it possible for the man who has been in regular employment for a large number of years to draw unemployment benefit almost up to a maximum of two years. This will have an important effect upon the Unemployment Assistance Board. It will take a large number of men off the means test, because it will keep them longer without having any need to be submitted to a means test.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Many of us spoke upon the report when it was presented 12 months ago, and the speeches that were made on that occasion would bear repeating on this report. I am more than ever convinced that the organisation that counts with the Government more than any other is the National Confederation. It is obvious that the National Confederation determines the policy which this Government should pursue generally, and particularly in regard to unemploy-

ment insurance. It is well known and generally accepted among business people that it is impossible to put unemployment insurance on an actuarial basis. Some of the biggest insurance companies in America have recently had expert actuaries on this question, and they have come to the conclusion unanimously that it is impossible to put unemployment insurance on an actuarial basis. If anyone on the Government side doubts that, I would point out that the Refuge, the Prudential and other insurance companies would have gone in for this form of insurance long before now had it been a business proposition.
I want to raise a question of administration. I was present last Saturday at a conference where there were a large number of representatives of people who will be affected by these changes. They welcomed them, but they are concerned about the administration. I understand that for purposes of continuity it will still be necessary for the three waiting days to be put in within a limit of 10 weeks. How will this affect us at holiday periods? We find that more and more employers are extending their holidays to enable them to get over internal difficulties, to make great changes inside their factories, and to carry out maintenance work. For these purposes holidays are being more and more extended. There is, in addition, the question of short time. The position has greatly improved in certain industries, and in the mining industry in certain districts and some parts of the cotton and pottery industries, a small amount of short time is worked. I understand that the divisional officers have come to arrangements with representatives of large factories and of industrial organisations which enable the work-people during these extended holiday periods or during short time to be excused from taking out their unemployment insurance cards.
If that arrangement can be arrived at between divisional officers and big factories, I want to ask, now that the waiting period is being reduced, whether the. Minister will consider allowing it to be made throughout the country instead of in only certain areas. These arrangements have been made for a long period where it suited the Employment Exchange or the divisional officer. For example, suppose a firm has been employing over


5,000 people. The firm with which I am familiar has been employing considerably over 10,000 people. In those cases it has been easy for arrangements to be made with the divisional officer which enabled the workpeople not to take out their insurance cards, with the result that they have got the waiting period in automatically. Now that the waiting period has been reduced, it will mean long queues at the Employment Exchanges unless this arrangement can be carried out throughout the country.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Woods: I have been impressed with the lack of real optimism in dealing with this matter. The very fact that the surplus is to be distributed over a period of eight years indicates a lack of faith in the future. Small as the concession is, I think that Members on both sides and people throughout the country will be glad of it, no matter how small the alleviation it may mean in the lot of those whose fate it is to be unemployed. It has been complained that those who are hit hardest by unemployment will benefit least under this scheme. We should be happier if there had been some arrangement whereby those who had suffered longest the hardship of unemployment would have a greater degree of relief. There is one group whom I have in mind, and I shall be glad to know whether the Minister can hold out any hope of anything being done for it. It is that small group of people who are past 65 years of age, whose only benefit from the State is the 10s. old age pension. Instead of going on to public assistance in order to augment the pension, they still have sufficient sturdy independence to do one or two days work a week. In my constituency there is a considerable percentage of such old people, and, being near the city, they are able to get a day or two's work in connection with such an industry as the Sunday newspaper. They work from 12 to 15 hours at the week-end, and their average pay is about 6d. an hour. The Act provides that employers in such cases shall pay the whole of the premium, but, while that may be true, everybody must concede that the actual wealth produced is some sort of indirect payment by the individual concerned. These men, however, get absolutely no benefit under the scheme. If they fall ill

they are entitled to medical service, but if they fall out of work they have no claim on the Unemployment Fund. Such minorities, who are making their contribution and getting absolutely no benefit, are in a far worse position even than the women referred to by the hon. Lady representing the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). I think that with a surplus in the Fund this small group of those who have served faithfully in industry, and are now trying to maintain a sturdy independence by doing what further service they can, working usually at hours which are inconvenient to other workers, should receive some recognition. Although it would be a small thing for the Fund to make some allowance to them when they fall out of work, it would mean a tremendous boon to them. I hope the Minister will consider the position of this group, to see whether something cannot be done for them.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) disturbed the Minister when he pointed out that there must be some special virtue in him which had put him in the position of being able to make such a favourable showing to the House. To those of us who have for some years watched the Ministry of Labour—and had some experience there —and seen the constant procession of those who went there as strong and virtuous Ministers to begin with, but ended by not feeling quite so strong or so virtuous, who went into the Department with pride and came out with pleasure, the Minister this afternoon has presented a rather unusual sight. The other day one of my hon. Friends did what I have been trying to do for some time—actually made the Minister blush. He told him that he was one of the ablest Ministers and that he expected much from him, and that made him blush more than any of the hard things I have said to him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) raised a number of points, and one to which I should like to have an answer dealt with the future repayment of the debt. The fact that we are discussing a special surplus is a very significant one, and worthy of the close attention of all who have some interest in the future of employment conditions in this country. The Statutory Committee itself is surprised that there is such a surplus. It took the


advice of the Committee of Economic Information, I think they call it—the Cabinet's advisers—and that committee gave such advice about the years to come as led the Statutory Committee to believe that the mean unemployment over the year would be 14.5 per cent.—the real mean of unemployment is 13 per cent. The significant thing about the reduction in unemployment is the insistence of the advisers on this occasion—it is the underlying theme all through the report—that this prosperity is in the main due to rearmament. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary questions that or not, but I think there is real ground for that assertion. In page 6 of the report the Statutory Committee point out that 21 industries in which there is a reduction of unemployment are mainly, though not wholly, such as would be stimulated directly by the Defence programme.
In various parts of the report there is insistence on that point, and I am pleased that it is emphasised, because there is a tendency to believe—I can only hope that it will be true—that the improved conditions are due to normal trade prosperity. Even some of the economists say that apart from the Defence programme there is an improvement in normal industry. But it is very important that that point should be remembered, and while we cannot deal with it to any extent now it must be underlined for future reference when we come to discuss the Government's policy in respect to the long-term unemployed, who are concerned in this matter and who were mentioned particularly by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). One thing which has been remarkable in the past year or two is that, while there has been a reduction in unemployment the proportion of those wholly unemployed has increased by leaps and bounds in reference to the numbers unemployed. Out of 1,600,000 unemployed there are no fewer than 1,434,000 who are wholly unemployed—out of a job. I think the right hon. Gentleman and others who have come into contact with the figures will agree that that proportion is becoming alarming. As the hon. Member for East Birkenhead pointed out, there are more than 300,000 persons who have been unemployed for 12 months, and they form almost one-fifth of those wholly unemployed.
The significant fact to be noted is that at a time of prosperity, when there is a great boom in the South and in the Midlands, and here and there in patches throughout the country, there are good, strong, able, industrious men who cannot get work and do not appear to be likely to get work. They, unfortunately, will not be aided by the proposals in this Order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield rightly pointed out that while the reduction of the waiting period from six days to three will help quite a large number of the unemployed, and while the substitution of the eight days for the five will reach some, the change will not reach those who are most in need of consideration, and will not reach the worst-hit areas, either. The Statutory Committee comment in their report on the reduction of unemployment in certain areas like the mining areas, but they also point out that three-quarters of the wholly unemployed in Wales are, I think, in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. In other counties which, taken as a whole, show apparent reductions in unemployment, there is still great unemployment concentrated in the heavy industry areas, and, what is worse, the people there have been unemployed for years, many of them for two, three, four or five years. Those are just the areas where the operation of the means test is felt most, and, personally, I would rather see the whole of the money go towards such an extension of the period as would bring the largest number of persons within the ambit of unemployment insurance in preference to leaving them to Public Assistance, so keeping them out of the range of the means test. Those are the people who have had the longest stretch of unemployment, whole areas have been devastated, and they need most consideration.
I hope the Minister will not give any credence to the suggestion in the Minority Report that there should be a reduction of contributions, or—I believe the view is held among some members of the Statutory Committee—that the debt should be reduced; in fact, the Minority Report says that it ought to be reduced at a more rapid rate. I do not know why there should be this continual insistence on the reduction of that debt. Although we talk about making the Fund financially sound, this Government in the past five years have added—I have not looked at the figures—no less than some


£200,000,000 to debt in connection with unemployment, only they have called it "grants to Public Assistance." Sometimes £ 150,000,000 or more a year has been found from the Exchequer direct, but they called it a grant; under previous Governments it used to be called a loan and added to the debt. That is the only difference. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will answer that point, and I think I know the sort of little qualification that he is going to make, but it will not make any difference whatever to the general principle.
The crux of the situation is the large number of people who are outside the ambit of the insurance scheme, and also the large number of people who will miss even the smallest benefit which is being provided. I hope the right hon. Gentle-man will keep his hand firmly upon the Statutory Committee. It was only with very great hesitation in some quarters of the House that they were given their powers in 1934. There were misgivings, even on the benches behind the Government, at the setting up of such a committee. I agree with the criticism that there is a tendency to treat the committee as though their word were law and must be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman has power to refuse any recommendations that are made by them. I do not think he can alter the recommendations; he can either accept them or refuse them. I trust that the Minister, as the representative of this House and of the people, and particularly of the workers and employers who make the contributions, will make it clear to the Statutory Committee that this House is the master in this matter. I make the point, because I think that this House should make it clear on every possible occasion that the Unemployment Insurance Fund exists to succour and aid large masses of the people who are damaged by unemployment not only in normal times, but in extraordinary times. That being so, the first business of those who rule the Fund is to give human consideration to these people.
The right hon. Gentleman gave an explanation of the waiting period, and particularly of the five days and of the eight days. I was thankful that he was giving the explanation rather than I. He should do what the Minister of Health

did last time, that is, stick to his brief. It is a very complicated matter indeed. The Minister of Health told us that we could read it the next day and thoroughly understand it. I would repeat that the one concern of the Fund, particularly in regard to a surplus, ought to be its extension to the people whose need is greatest, those who have been out of work for a long period. When next the Statutory Committee have a surplus at their disposal, as I am certain they will if they are as wrong next year in their calculations as they have been this year, I trust they will give some attention to people who are outside the ambit of the scheme, in order to bring in a larger number of people, and to give help where it is most needed and where the largest number of long-term unemployed are concentrated. We welcome the reduction of the six days to three, and we hope that the Minister will bring to the attention of the Statutory Committee the point that has been so insistently raised, both in my own speech and in other speeches. I am alarmed at the note I find in the Minority Report, and at the misunderstanding and lack of understanding on the part of members of the Statutory Committee, who are responsible for the maintenance of the unemployed in their time of need.

6.51 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Lieut.-Colonel Muir-head): It is, perhaps, a tribute to the interest taken in the affairs of the Ministry of Labour that even when there appears to be almost unanimity, we can sustain a Debate of nearly three hours. I had intended to open with a few remarks on the subject of rubber stamps, but they have got somewhat: worn in the course of the Debate, so I will leave them alone. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) asked me to give, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, pledges on two subjects with regard to the future disposal of surplus. The first pledge was that none of the surplus would be applied to debt, and the second, that all the accruing surplus would be used for people who are out of work. If the right hon. Gentleman were in the position which my right hon. Friend holds, I do not know whether he would be prepared to give hypothetical pledges, not only on those points, but on points of


that nature which might be put to him. But that itself is a hypothetical consideration at the moment. I am safe in saying that whatever my right hon. Friend may decide in future—his freedom to reject the advice of the Statutory Committee has been well emphasised in the course of the Debate—I am sure that he is not prepared to prejudge the consideration and the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, which, so far, has done such excellent work and has given such excellent advice.
The right hon. Gentleman raised also questions with regard to the agricultural scheme, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). I would remind hon. Members, although I think they appreciate it well enough themselves, that contributions have not been paid for the period of a year and that benefit has been given for only about four months. It is obviously far too early to make any sort of suggestion or promise, however qualified it may be. It is clear there is no power at the moment to alter the scheme in regard to the disposing of surplus because, in point of fact, the Statutory Committee have not declared any surplus for disposal. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths)—I take notice of certain points which he raised—asked for information on the subject of the Easter holidays. He wanted to know how they would count for waiting days. The answer is that there is no change in consequence of the proposals at present before the House. Those holidays count as waiting days, but they do not count as benefit days. If the hon. Member bears that principle in mind, he will see how the holiday period applies in each particular case.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I suppose that the Friday, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday, that is, the Easter holiday, will not count as waiting days, but they may count as linking-up days with the waiting days?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: They will count as waiting days, but they will not count as benefit days.

Mr. Buchanan: None of the four days will be paid for?

Lieut. - Colonel Muirhead: On the assumption that the holiday ends on Monday night, the Tuesday before Good Friday is the first day of which unemployment is proved, the first benefit day will

be the following Tuesday. If Wednesday is the first day on which unemployment is proved, the first benefit day will be Tuesday again. In the case of Thursday, the first benefit day will again be the following Tuesday.

Mr. Buchanan: None of the four days will count for benefit, although they serve as the waiting period?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: They do not count for benefit purposes, but only for waiting purposes.

Mr. Lawson: Is there an Umpire's decision on that point?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not know. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) gave these proposals his approval. Appreciating as we do the practical experience he has had and the work which he has done, I can assure him that that approval is welcome. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) asked what would be the number of persons benefiting by another day. The estimated figure would be 16,000 who would benefit on any one day, but he will understand that that does not mean that in the course of the year only 16,000 individuals would feel the benefit. The number would be far greater. He also complained on the subject of seasonal workers. I do not think I could do better than repeat to him the supplementary answer given to his Parliamentary question as recently as 18th February. It was as follows:
Mr. ROBINSON: Can the Minister give any figures in support of the statement that the position of seasonal workers is improving?
Mr. BROWN: Yes, in the 12 months preceding that date the number of claims disallowed by the court of referees under the regulations was 18,435, and in the subsequent 12 months the number of disallowances was only 10,853. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1937; col. 1336, Vol. 320.]
That is some indication of the benefit to seasonal workers under the recent seasonal workers' Order.

Mr. R. Robinson: I think the Parliamentary Secretary rather misunderstood my point. I gave the Government credit for improving the position of the seasonal worker, but my argument was that the job is only half done. I wanted him to review the position and to hold out some hope that the job might be completed in, the reasonably near future.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: My experience is that very few jobs are fully done. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) had his periodical complaint against the chairman of the Statutory Committee. He complained also about our spreading our calculations, and therefore our payments, over the eight-year period. It is true that we could live from hand to mouth, spending a pound when it appeared. That course can be pursued in private finances, but it often ends in disaster. The Government have no intention of pursuing that type of policy in regard to the public finances for which they are responsible. They have no desire to try and gain popularity by putting forward benefits which they cannot see their way within a reasonable period to sustain.

Mr. Buchanan: The year previous, the whole of the surplus was used in the year.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That was not so. It was disposed of on the same principle of an eight-year spread-over as is adopted this year. The Statutory Committee Report for 1935, paragraph 31, says:
In the light of the conclusion reached above, it becomes our duty to make recommendations for the disposal of an annual surplus of about £6,500,000 a year.
The money that was disposed of last year was not disposed of on any different principle from this year. If the hon. Member is trying to insinuate that on the basis of an eight-year spread-over we have this year £17,000,000 to dispose of he is wrong. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-day) tried to connect his remarks with those of the hon. Member for Gorbals. The hon. Member must realise that part of the money being disposed of now is an actual realised surplus, and part of it is money which we are dispersing in accordance with an assumption about next year. It is partly realised and partly estimated. When you go on a basis like that there is bound to be a good deal of diversity of opinion as to the basis on which you should make your calculation, but no one can say that at one and the same time you can have all the benefits of assuming that you are giving yourself a surplus in a particular year and avoid the demerit of spreading it over eight years.

Mr. Hayday: You estimate there will be £12,275,000 for 1937, and you estimate on the basis of 80 per cent. of that amount, which is £9,820,000. That is not eight years, that is one year.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: You cannot assume that your benefit will be the same for eight years. You have to take into consideration not only your estimated increases but also the estimated demands that are likely to be made. It is true there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about eight years, but on the fundamental principle on which the Statutory Committee works there can be no serious disagreement. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) asked what would be the benefit in the present proposals for people who had been insured for 30 years. Of course, nobody has yet been insured for 30 years, but taking a man who has been long insured, he will benefit to the extent of nine weeks extra benefit. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) I thought came in just before she spoke and went out again almost immediately afterwards. Her waiting period seemed to be negligible, but I see she has come in again for benefit. I cannot do better than take refuge behind the women members of the committee, who agreed with the majority report. As the hon. Lady said that women are less articulate than men, I will try to disprove her statement and say no more about it.

Miss Rathbone: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some reason to hope that the women's claim will be considered next time? The cost of the small alteration I asked for would be only £1,000,000 a year, and would not be a heavy additional claim.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The point has been discussed, and hope never did any harm. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ellis Smith) said that the National Confederation of Employers' Associations dictated the way in which this money has been disposed of. He cannot justify that in view of paragraph 45 of the report, which states:
The National Confederation of Employers' Associations urged that reduction of contributions should be regarded as a first charge on any surplus that might become available, until contributions have reached a level of 6d. a week from each party for an adult workman, as compared with the rod fixed in 1931 and the 9d. now in force.


That was the contention put forward this year by the Confederation, and it was not proceeded with. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) tried to make out that we were just as profligate on unemployment expenditure as his Government had been. The answer really is not a queestion of pounds, shillings and pence. It lies in the view that the people of this country and of the world take of the credit of the British Government, and on that there can be no argument. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that my right hon. Friend had all the luck. Napoleon once said that he did not want good Generals, he wanted lucky ones. I think he said that because what often appears to be luck is, in fact, efficiency.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Additional Days and Waiting Period) Order, 1937, laid before Parliament on the twenty-third day of February in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [24TH FEBRUARY]

Resolution reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936, REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."

Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [9TH FEBRUARY].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [24th February] on consideration of Eighth Resolution,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,050, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Grants in respect of the expenses of the Managers of Approved Schools in England and Wales; the expenses

of Local Authorities in respect of children and young persons committed to their care; and the expenses of the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs in respect of Remand Homes.

Which Question was, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Question again proposed.

Mr. Paling: I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether he can now answer the question to which we did not get a satisfactory answer before, and which was postponed on the understanding that an answer would be given at this stage.

7.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I was asked where the recent new approved schools were situated. They are at Manchester, Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Staffordshire, Lincolnshire, Glamorgan, Kent and Birmingham. I can also say that the Home Office have to approve the appointment of the head masters of the schools. I am in a position to assure the hon. Member that this Supplementary Estimate does not mean in our view that there is a great rise in juvenile crime. On the contrary, it means something satisfactory rather than disagreeable. It may be due to the increasing use that the various authorities are making of the courts under the Children and Young Persons Act. As a result of that Act, many private people and also police authorities are more ready to bring juvenile cases before the court because they are more confident that they will be dealt with in a sympathetic manner and in a way which will help to improve the character and prospects of the children concerned. There was power given to send children to approved schools, or to put them in the custody of a fit person, even when an offence had not been committed, if the circumstances of the home were such as to justify the view that they were likely to be led into a life of crime.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the hon. Member the figures of those who were sent to approved schools on account of home conditions?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not got those figures, but there is a considerable increase in the number of care and protection cases. There are approved schools provided by local authorities or voluntary agencies,


but there is also in the Estimate provision for maintenance expenditure by local authorities. One of the innovations was to allow local authorities to act as fit persons for the purposes of having children in their custody. In the old days, private individuals had to assume onerous liabilities in respect of any child, but by enabling local authorities to become fit persons in the legal sense, they are able to appoint individuals to do the actual work of the foster parent while the local authority remains the legal entity which is the fit person. I can assure the House that this Estimate does not lead us to any gloomy reflection regarding juvenile crime. The reason why we have to present this Supplementary Estimate is that the expenditure depends on the use that the Courts make of the Act in a particular year, and it is not easy to foretell with great accuracy what use the Courts will make of the Act in any particular period. We do our best to estimate, but in actual fact more use was made of the Act than we expected. I believe, however, that that, so far from being a reason for gloomy reflections, is a sign of the increasingly humane way in which juvenile delinquents are being treated in this country.

Mr. Paling: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is a greater disposition on the part of the magistrates now to send children to these schools and take them out of the care of their parents when the parents object? A few cases have come to my knowledge in which parents have been very much disturbed because they have thought that their children have been compulsorily taken from them.

Mr. Lloyd: It is true that there is now an increased disposition on the part of police authorities to bring doubtful cases before the magistrates, and I think it may also be true that there is a disposition on the part of magistrates to send children to approved schools when they think it is really in the interests of the child and of the future of the child. I do not, however, think that there is any undue tendency on the part of magistrates to do that. From time to time I have had cases from hon. Members of this House, and have looked into them very carefully, but in most of these cases I do not think that even the Member himself has been convinced that there was

any real ground of complaint, although he may have put forward the case at the request of the parents.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I am not satisfied with the very kindly answer that has been given by the hon. Gentleman. He tells us that the reason for this increased Estimate is that greater use is being made of tile Children and Young Persons Act. That means that greater use is being made of the Act in one respect, that is to say, that commitments to these approved schools are more common now than they were previously. I do not think the hon. Gentleman's responsibility in this matter runs across the Border, but there is a corresponding rise in the Scottish figures also.
There seems to be an idea in the minds of magistrates that, when the name of these schools was changed from reformatory or industrial schools to approved schools, these places had become delightful little Etons and Harrows for the young delinquents of the slums; but they are essentially prisons. The fact that they are under the control of the Home Office rather than of the Board of Education is an indication that in the minds of the Government these youngsters are to be treated as prisoners. In former years, before the passing of the Children and Young Persons Act, the number of youngsters committed to reformatory and industrial schools was steadily diminishing; other ways were being found of dealing with them besides by imprisonment; but, now that we have these approved schools—the same institutions with a different name, under the same control, and with the same type of staff—the numbers committed to them are increasing year after year. Moreover, appalling sentences are given by magistrates—five and six years of imprisonment in these places. For the most trivial offences, like playing football in the streets and things of that description, youngsters are haled before the court, and someone comes forward and says, "This boy has been in trouble before; this is a bad case; he broke a window two months ago; we shall have to make an example of this little ten-year-old boy."
I had a case in my constituency where a youngster 7½ years of age was committed and branded as a young criminal. He came out of a respectable home; his


father was a man whom I would trust to look after his children as I would trust to look after myself. It so happened that his wife was away in hospital at the time undergoing an operation, and when she came back she found that her youngster had been committed to one of these prisons for five years. The Under-Secretary says that we must not be disturbed by these increasing numbers, but it is happening all over the country; more and more youngsters are being taken away from their homes. I admit that occasionally the homes are such that they are better out of them, but I wish I was quite as sure that the conditions in the school are so immensely superior to those of the home. It requires an exceptionally fine institution to make up for family life and parental affection, and frequently the homes from which these children are taken are perfectly good homes. I had a most extraordinary case of a youngster 15 years of age who had been committed to one of these institutions for a couple of years, and whose parents subsequently found that he had been enlisted in the Army as a boy. When I took up the matter on behalf of the parents with the War Office, they told me that they had the authority of the headmaster of the school; the Army authorities took him as being in loco parentis. We talk about liberty and all the rest of it, but that seems to me to be going desperately far. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not feel, in regard to these schools, the complacency that he has expressed here today, but will go and have a look at them, and will send round some suggestions to the magistrates to the effect that they should not rush too easily to commit these children.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I am sure the Under-Secretary will have gathered, from the questions which the Opposition put in the Committee stage and from the points which have been raised to-night, that the Opposition are concerned about the increased number of children who must be provided for as indicated by the new Vote. While we do not want to hold up the business, in view of the work that the House has subsequently to do, I think the Home Office representatives ought to be ready to go into this matter in much more detail when the Department's Vote comes before the House for consideration. The remarks which have been made on

the Supplementary Estimate are just a pointer as to the kind of information which Members want, in order that their real and genuine concern about this development may be satisfied.
Years ago I had some experience on the staff of a local education authority, and I know a little about that type of school, which was sometimes a boarding school, where the children were taken right away from their parents, and sometimes was of the day-school category. The hon. Gentleman's answer has not given us sufficient information to enable us to gather exactly what is being done in regard to these newly provided institutions which are covered by the Supplementary Vote, and I hope we may have further information on that subject. I think the House ought to have also, when it goes into Committee of Supply on the Home Office Vote, figures showing what has been the total result of this administration of the Children and Young Persons Act on the boys—and girls, I suppose—who are sent to these institutions, so that we may have some idea as to whether the action of magistrates in this matter, admittedly from right motives, is of exactly the right character.
Another point about which we are concerned, and on which we ought to have information, is as to the type of teachers now being appointed to the staffs of these schools, and especially as to the attitude which the Home Office take on the Report of the Departmental Committee with regard to the conditions, status and salaries of the teachers who are being appointed to schools of this class. In any case I think we shall have discharged very briefly a useful function if the Home Office will make a point, on the main Vote, of meeting our concern on this matter and giving us the chance of debating it.

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps, with the leave of the House, I may say that I quite appreciate the desire of hon. Members for information on this very important branch of social work. I will go thoroughly into the points which have been raised, and will be prepared to make a detailed statement on the whole subject at a later opportunity.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I cannot quite understand the replies which have been given on this Vote. The hon. Gentleman, when he


was asked whether the Vote was due to an increase in juvenile crime, said that it was not, but on the 11th June last year I asked the Home Office a question as to the number of juveniles between 14 and 16 who had been convicted of crime in the years 1933, 1934 and 1935. In reply I was told that, in 1933, 4,669 juveniles between 14 and 16 had been convicted of crime. In 1934 the number had gone up to 6,257, while in 1935, for which year the figures were not yet available, it was estimated that the number was 8,600. It appears to me, therefore, that one of the main reasons for this Vote must be an increase in juvenile crime.
We have been told that in the case of these new approved schools so called —I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that they differ very little from the old reformatory schools of years gone by—the head teachers are appointed by the managers. I should like to know who appoints the other members of the staff, and I should also like to know something more about the managers—who they are and whom they represent. Further, I should like to know how many remand homes are covered by this Vote, where those remand homes are situated, of what type they are, and who inspects and reports upon them, because in my opinion some of the boys and girls who are committed to these homes and schools are being unfairly dealt with.
I am very much concerned especially for these children between 14 and 16, because I believe that the right place for these boys and girls is in the ordinary schools, and not in industry. In my question of the 11th June last I also asked how many of the boys and girls who had been convicted of crime were still attending school, and the answer to that part of the question was that practically none of them had been attending school. As an old teacher I consider that those boys and girls between 14 and 16 ought to have been kept under the discipline of school rather than running about the streets, getting into trouble, and being convicted of crime. I hope that we shall have some fuller information on this matter on the Home Office Vote.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. George Hall: Is not the Minister going to give us any explanation with regard to the changes which have taken place in this Bill?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): There have been no changes in the Bill.

Mr. Hall: It is very unusual to pass the Third Reading of a Bill without some statement on behalf of the Government.

Sir K. Wood: I shall be very glad to make a short statement. The Bill passed through its Committee stage without Amendment and I shall see that any undertakings given are carried out. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that it was the general desire that the Bill should now take the usual course, and I hope it will now receive its Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.30 p.m.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
My reason for moving this is the great concern that is felt by many people who are affected by the electrification of the live rail, which is inadequately protected. It will run through some of the most rural parts of England. A live rail in an urban district is very different from having it in an agricultural district, where it is much more difficult to prevent it being a danger to animal and human life.
There is no question of any illegality on the part of the railway company, but I see that no power is taken in the Bill to recognise the extra danger of the live rail rather than the overhead wire, which we all expected would be used. It is very natural that the people in these districts are very much concerned and are hardly comforted by the way they have been treated so far by the company. It seems to us that, if there is nothing in the Bill to ensure more adequate protection of the live rail, it is up to the Minister to frame regulations. I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friend, who is a much greater agriculturist than I am, and who is a director of the Southern Railway Company, and I do not in the least want to exaggerate the danger, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) the other day asked a question and was informed that in 1934 five children were killed by live rails, in 1935, six, and last year 11 were killed and there were two other casualties. That shows a progressive rate of accidents and, as you electrify the live rail more and more over England, you will have that rate doubled, and so on, as you get on. The Electric Lighting Act, 1888, provides that, where an electric line is laid down, even on private land, in such a manner as not to be entirely enclosed, the Board of Trade may require that it shall be used only in accordance with such conditions and subject to such regulations for the protection of public safety as the board may require. We ask that some notice may be taken of that in the case of railway companies.
There have been protest meetings, as the result of which we have represented our case to the Chairman and General Manager of the railway company. They received us with great courtesy and gave us a glass of sherry, but the answer that they sent us, and the Chairman's speech at the meeting last week, mean that our complaints were not listened to. We were nicely answered, but nothing was done. The only excuse they make is to plead expense and their inability to do anything to make the line safe. I am a considerable shareholder, though I was too busy to attend the shareholders' meeting and voice my opinion, but I feel that, if they are going to make money out of electrification, they ought at least to consider the interest of the people through

whose property they run. We got no satisfaction out of the company, so we appeal to Caesar and here we are. Since our interview with the Chairman and Manager, the West Sussex County Council have passed a resolution to make representations to the Minister of Transport, drawing his attention to the danger to persons employed in agricultural work and to animals, and urging the Minister to hold an inquiry into alternative and safer methods of electrification, and to insist that all possible steps are taken to protect the live rail in such a way that people and animals will not be liable to come into contact with it. I am entitled to say, therefore, that this is causing a great deal of concern, and we appeal to the Minister to help us if the railway company will not meet us.
There are many little country stations —they might be called slum stations—which are not lit at night. I got out of a train a few months ago at a station where I had to change platforms and I had to cross the line. There was not a single light on the station and I had to get a porter to show me the way. The least that the Southern Railway can do is to build foot bridges over the line, as other companies do, but they say they will only do it in cases where there are a good many children. Farmers through whose property the line runs have been accustomed to drive their cattle across where there are gates. In some cases the electrification of the line has already provided an opportunity for removing public crossings and installing bridges. They say they are always prepared to examine the claims of farmers who want cattle crossings, but will they recognise that all the present cattle crossings should be made permanent? I am afraid we shall get no guarantee and, except where the company think it necessary, the crossings will be shut up. I see no reason why there should not be rabbit netting wire six feet high to stop children and animals and dogs or other things getting on the line and being electrocuted. The Post Office shows some signs of humanity in shooting districts by putting little blobs on their wires for the protection of birds. It is not too much to ask the Southern Railway Company to put up sheep or rabbit netting in the interests of safety. We private owners—and no one knows better than the hon. Baronet—have to fence our forest land plantations, and I


do not see why they should not fence their property in like manner.
These points ought to be inquired into, and the Minister should adopt the recommendation of the West Sussex County Council. When we asked the Southern Railway, we were told that we were too late, that these millions of pounds were being spent, and they could not afford to do this kind of work. Why should our country folk suffer because of the Southern Railway's lack of judgment? Two committees sat, one in 1928, and another in 1931, and we were told that they recommended that the overhead system should be used, and not live ground rails. The Southern Railway started with the overhead system. The London and North-Eastern Railway and the London Midland and Scottish Railway say that they are going to use the overhead system. That is another matter which the county council have rightly asked should be inquired into. It really is time that a further inquiry was held. If the Southern Railway cannot adopt both systems at least some protection should be provided against the dangerous lines.
I would draw the attention of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to the fact that the Southern Railway are electrified in one way, and that other lines are being electrified in other ways. You must have some steam trains, and I understand the Southern Railway are, on the advice of the War Office, having to keep a certain number of engines in order to draw those trains. We must have some system on the railways as part of defence in case of danger, so that trucks and everything else can be made interchangeable. The chairman of the Southern Railway, in the report which he sent to us and to all the shareholders, said that
The company would always take ample care to protect proper access to the line, but the public on their part must realise that a railway line, with its vastly increasing service of trains and with the additional danger of the electric current "—
They admit that—
differs little in negotiability from a fast flowing river, and it should only be crossed where crossings are provided for the public.
That is the very threatening answer which we received when we asked them if they could not meet us in some

way. I wonder what the public would say if the Minister of Transport issued the same sort of threat—[An HON. MEMBER: "He does"]—and said to pedestrians, "These are the crossings, and if you dc not use them, it is your own fault if you are killed." These are the fears of the country dwellers, many of whom live in cottages beside the lines, and they want protection from the dangers of these live rails. The amenities of the countryside will be very much worsened. I have talked about the amenities quite openly of hunting and shooting, but there are people like tradesmen who live upon the amenities and who may lose their trade if there is serious interference with those amenities. I hope that the Minister will take some notice of the resolution of the Sussex County Council asking for some sort of inquiry such as he has held before, to see whether some of these grievances cannot be easily adjusted and a great and powerful vested interest like the Southern Railway cannot protect the people they serve rather than their own shareholders.

7.52 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to second the Amendment.
I desire to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), but before I make my few remarks on the subject of the live rail and its dangers, I would like to pay a tribute to the Southern Railway for their enterprise and for the progress they have made. Although they stand out as a pattern, in many respects, as a progressive railway, there is no doubt that their methods are becoming more autocratic as time goes on. They are, in fact, using what I would call a giant's strength in the countryside. There has been a steady flow of Bills providing them with more and more power and monopoly during the last few years; there have been something like six or seven Bills in the last 10 years. I am informed that when the live rail question was originally discussed by committees in 1927 and in 1931, the rural interests, whether public authorities or private interests, were not consulted. I refer to the National Farmers' Union and organisations such as the Central Landowners' Association. The hon. Member who preceded me read an extract from the speech of the chairman of


the Southern Railway, and I refer particularly to what was said in that speech in regard to taking every and ample care to prevent improper access to its line. I think I can show that the company neither take "every" nor "ample care to keep animals and human beings away.
A considerable number of accidents have happened, and by comparison with the roads, the accidents on the railways are very minor affairs. It is entirely a false analogy for the chairman of the Southern Railway to speak of the vast flowing, unfordable rivers, except in particular spots, and comparing those with an electrified line. Anybody can tell if there is a river there. They can hear it, and they can see it. If one looks at a bare steel rail, one cannot tell that there is death in it, except by touching it. It appears the same to everybody. Why should we, except from the point of view of economy, which I believe is one of the guiding interests, and, in many instances, a very proper one, have a dangerous system in this country when all over the Continent the overhead system is used. I believe I am right in saying that there is hardly a live rail system anywhere on the Continent. The chairman of the company went on to speak of the accidents attributable to shock as having been confined to a few people who had climbed over fences for some purpose of their own. I do not care how long the world continues, but you will never prevent children from trespassing, and it is not fair to describe children as climbing over railway fences as though they knew all about it and understood the danger. It is not so. He went on to say:
A certain number of stray dogs and cats have been electrocuted.
There are thousands of people living literally within a few yards of the line, and is it fair, when somebody's dog or cat, perhaps let out for a moment or two, wanders on to the line, that all the comfort they should get is to be told that they should keep their animals in? Why should animals such as foxes and badgers and otters die by this live rail or be terribly burned or injured? The animals do not know the crossings as we do, and even at crossings human beings are likely to make mistakes. Parents whom I know who live near are definitely frightened

regarding their children. I know farmers who have kept dogs but have now given up doing so because they could not prevent them from being electrocuted. It has been said—not in this House—that when the line was first electrified there were few protests. That is not true. There were a great many protests, and I believe that, if there had been more cooperation, more might have been done. It is now too late to enter a protest. The statement of the Southern Railway, which I have here and which has been sent to every Member of Parliament, says that the company is bound to fence the railway to prevent trespass and cattle from straying, and that on the electrified lines special fencing, with additional wires, is provided, and that in places where trespassing by children has actually occurred unclimbable fencing is even provided. To-day I travelled to Lewes, which is my constituency, and back again. I had not often looked at the railway fences, but I did so to-day, and I maintain that they are entirely inadequate to prevent human beings from climbing, and they certainly are not high enough to prevent an ordinary active animal from trespassing on the line, and certainly not sufficient to prevent any boy from doing so. In some cases the fences are actually broken away. I passed a place this afternoon—I noticed it on the way down, and again on the way up—where a flock of sheep could walk through the fence on to the line.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Will my hon. and gallant Friend kindly mention in what part of the line it was?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: It was at Ditchling Common. I want to make one protest about fencing. It ought to be put up before the live rail is put down. On the way to Lewes and Eastbourne there are three or four different kinds of fencing, and in time I believe that it will be improved. I want to raise another point which is of extreme importance to me from the standpoint of being the Member of Parliament for Lewes and district, and in doing so I must refer to several Clauses in the Bill. There are the Clauses, "Power to acquire lands," "Period of compulsory purchase of lands," "Stopping up roads and footpaths without providing substitute, "and" Stopping up footpaths in case of diversion." There are other Clauses to which I could refer.
My point is that owing to the autocratic and monopolistic methods of the Southern Railway—naturally I suppose their tendency is to look after their shareholders—they have done a good many things which have caused intense dissatisfaction. To remain within order I would point out that the Sections to which I have referred will or could quite easily produce similar circumstances elsewhere. Therefore, what I am going to say is intended as a warning to other people who may be concerned in the future. The monopolising of road transport does not come in directly, but it does indirectly, and I should like to refer to the question of road transport and the prevention of access to the sea and harbours. There is very real dissatisfaction in one seaport in my constituency which suffers in that respect. As far as I have been able to understand from the correspondence, the railway company scorn utterly all local interests, and have done little or nothing about this dissatisfaction. Their correspondence may be described as evasive and unaccommodating.
We have two ports served by the Southern Railway, and in the Bill another port is to be served. What is happening at the present time is that the port of Newhaven is suffering from serious unemployment, and would suffer even more were it not for a good deal of building that is going on at the present time. No road transport is allowed to approach the river and to load up from the steamers that come in. The result is trade of the port has fallen off tremendously. What they are allowed to do is to go and get whatever cargo there is that has been discharged, but they have to take it from the rail. The cargo is transferred from the steamers to the railway and is carried somewhere about half a mile to a station in the town, where the local road transport may take it away. Hon. Members will readily understand that the net result of this arrangement is that the cost at Newhaven is practically double the cost at Shoreham, only 10 miles away. I have the figures to prove that.

Earl Winterton: That is a very interesting point because Shoreham is in my constituency. At Shoreham they refuse to give any facilities for unloading a ship and the result is that the whole of the

goods so unloaded are conveyed by road transport.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: That is an extremely interesting point and one which could be easily adjusted by a little generosity on the part of the Southern Railway. I have here the discharge rates. At the present time the local authority at the Port of Newhaven, in consequence of the great cost locally, have, in the interests of the ratepayers, to import their material from the Port of Shoreham. The costs at Newhaven are double because of the failure of the railway company to allow access to the steamers by the road transport. In saying that, I am not prepared to say positively that it is all the fault of the Southern Railway, but I do say that no matter how many times they are approached they never send a useful or helpful sort of answer and never have a real investigation in order to try and help. I am delighted at the electrification progress, but I do think that there has been a little too much of the autocratic methods adopted by the board of the Southern Railway, and I would ask them to do their utmost to look into this question and give us some sort of guarantee not only that the question of the live rail will be considered, but also the public and private interests in the country which they serve.

8.5 p.m.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: It falls to my lot to answer the criticisms which have been made against the Southern Railway system of electrification or the extension of electrification, by my hon. and gallant Friends. Before I go into the general subject of electrification and its dangers, and the exaggeration which has taken place in the public mind as to those dangers, I should like to answer two or three specific points raised by my hon. and gallant Friends. In the first place, I should like to reassure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) about the level crossings which scare him so much. There is not a single level crossing over a live rail.

Brigadier-General Brown: We have to go across them over the live rail.

Sir G. Courthope: You do not have to cross the live rail. The live rail is interrupted and does not cross it. It stops at


least nine feet from the side of the crossing and the current is taken in an insulated cable underneath the road. There is no live rail across any crossing. As far as the question of Faygate Station is concerned, I have looked at the plans for station improvements and I see that in the original plan there is to be an iron footbridge at that particular station.

Brigadier-General Brown: I was not aware of that.

Sir G. Courthope: If my hon. and gallant Friend had asked he could have been informed. I hope that I have made it clear that there is no danger whatever at a level crossing, because there is no level crossing with a live rail.

Lord Ansley: Can any provision be made to safeguard the driving of cattle across these accommodation crossings? Very often water and meadows are on one side and the cattle have to be driven across twice a day over the railway. If the hon. and gallant Member has ever driven cattle across a crossing, he knows that they do not always go straight but are apt to stray. If it were a question of an ordinary rail it would not matter, but there is danger that they will go on to the live rail.

Sir G. Courthope: Where it is intimated to the railway company that cattle have to be driven across a crossing, cattle grids are installed, which we have found completely successful. They are put on both sides of the crossing. I have a plan which the noble Lord may see if he likes. As far as I can ascertain, there is no case of a farm animal bolting up the line over one of these cattle grids. I do not say that they are safeguards for cats and possibly dogs, for I think they can cross them, but farm animals cannot.
One further point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury, on which he was mistaken. There is not the slightest intention to remove all the steam locomotives from the Southern Railway. If the electric system is out of action owing to a war or anything of that kind, the steam locomotives will be there but, of course, not in such numbers as in the past. The lines will be available for steam locomotives over the whole system. The hon. and gallant Member also gave an analogy which was not applicable. He referred to a quotation

from the speech of the Chairman of the Southern Railway to shareholders at the recent general meeting and made an analogy between danger to pedestrians on the roads and danger on the railways. I would point out that the pedestrian has a right to be on the road but he has no right, without trespass, to be on a railway, except at the crossings. Therefore, there was no analogy. With regard to the speech of the Seconder of the Amendment, I should like to thank him for the pats of butter he handed out, but later he showed a different spirit by using a certain phrase about autocratic methods and death on the rail. I much regret that he should have lent himself to this exaggeration of words as applied to the third-rail system, which is approved by the Standardisation of Electrification Order, 1932. With regard to his specific complaint about Newhaven, I should like to remind him that if it was not for the Southern Railway and its very large expenditure, both capital and current, there, there would be no port facilities at Newhaven. His constituents at Newhaven ought to be extremely grateful to the Southern Railway that there is so much employment and that employment has not fallen off more.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the River Ouse was not made by the Southern Railway.

Sir G. Courthope: And I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the Port of Newhaven was constructed by the Southern Railway. The extension of electrification into rural districts, which is the cause of the main complaint made against us, is not being carried out under the Bill now before the House, but under powers already granted. The present Bill has no material bearing upon that question. Beyond taking powers to acquire small sites for transforming stations and things of that kind, the Bill is not essential to that particular work and does not seek powers for extending it. As the main burden of the complaint has been that there is danger to farm animals, to landowners and to hunting, it is rather a comic point that I am a landowner, a farmer and a hunting man, and that one of the projected extensions of the Southern Railway, which will be carried out in the next two years, intersects my estate, divides my largest farm in half, and goes


through the country of a hunt upon whose committee I serve. I do not want to talk about myself, but I say that deliberately for the reason that if the fears which actuate my hon. and gallant Friends were well founded, I should share them. I should have every personal reason for opposing electrification through my district and across my property, but it is because I know those fears to be unfounded that I welcome that extension.
Let me deal with the general position. The third rail system, the conductor-rail system of electrification, is standardised to this extent, that the order which provides for standardisation lays it down that contact shall be on the top, and it also indicates the exact position of the conductor rail in relation to the running rail. The suggestion has been made that the public would be safer if the Southern Railway adopted other systems of live rail electrification. They cannot be considered because they would be outside our powers; they would be breaches of the standardisation order. It has been suggested that there should be a top cover to the conductor rail such as is found, I believe, on the New York Central Railway. That would not only be a breach of the order but is physically impossible, even if the Minister were to modify the order, because it would require a very much greater loading gauge than the rolling stock of the country has, and if rolling stock with a greater clearance was built it would mean that all the bridges and tunnels would be put out of action. We have to adapt the system of electrification to the conditions which exist on the railways, and to the rolling stock which runs over them.
Let me come to the question whether there is any justification for the fears which have been expressed. I have referred to one sentence used by the hon. and gallant Admiral. I will mention just one more which has appeared in the public Press and is typical of the inadequate knowledge which induces many people to write on the subject of the live rail and the dangers which may attach to it:
The live rail on the Southern Railway system kills horribly on touch, and is unprotected.
That is only one of many similar statements which have appeared in the public Press. I am not going to attempt an

answer from my own experience—I am only an amateur with no technical knowledge whatever—or from statements of high skilled electrical engineers who serve us on the railways, I propose to give an answer from an independent source. I have in my hand a paper which was read some years ago on the subject of electric shocks to the Institution of Electrical Engineers by Mr. A. P. Trotter, who was then chief electrical adviser to the Board of Trade. This paper was read in 1902 in the early days of the live rail, and it was his duty to inspect those railways which employed the live rail system:
Irresponsible correspondents have suggested in the newspapers that to fall on the electric rails of the Central London Railway is to be grilled alive; they knew no better. But when during the inspection of the last extension of the City and South London Railway I stood on the rails in wetted boots and sat on the live conductor and slapped the running rails with my bare hands, engineers, electricians, railway employés, and others who ought to know better, were surprised and spoiled the effect of my demonstration by suggesting that I was peculiarly insusceptible to shocks.
He gives other examples:
To sit on the live rail without touching the running rails was easy, and I cautiously flicked the running rail and then touched it and then laid my hands fiat on it without the slightest sensation. While experience has shown that a person so falling may receive a serious and even fatal shock, this can only occur if he makes contact with both a live rail and a running rail with bare skin or thoroughly wetted clothes, and if he lie there for a time. As to the length of this time we know nothing, but so long as the fall has not injured the person so that he cannot rise it is very improbable that the shock would be maintained. A platelayer in the open yard of the Waterloo and City Railway once accidentally sat on the third rail and made the circuit through his feet on wet ground. He shouted and was pulled off by his mates; the contraction of his muscles prevented him from rising. He could probably have rolled over and so released himself. He was back at work again in a few minutes.
There are a number of instances of that kind, and he sums up his conclusions at the end of his paper with this statement:
With sound dry boots hardly anybody can feel a shock when standing on the live rail of an electric railway with one foot and on a running rail with the other. With damp or wet boots a shock is felt but neither the sensation nor the degree of wetness of the boots can be measured accurately. It is not possible to receive a shock by sitting or lying on a live rail so long as the clothes are dry and continuous, that is to say so long as the live metal is not touched by the bare skin.


I only attach importance to these statements because they are those of an independent electrical engineer of great distinction, and they show that although there is undoubtedly a small element of danger in the live rail system it is very much exaggerated.

Sir John Mellor: Will the hon. and gallant Member say what is the distance between the live rail and the running rail?

Sir G. Courthope: It is laid down in the order, and my recollection is that it is one foot four and a half inches. Let me deal with the point regarding farm animals. Of course a number of farm animals are caught by trains at level crossings and killed by impact, but as far as I can ascertain, and I have taken some trouble to ensure that I have got all the information available, I find that during three years six horses or ponies, two bullocks and one pig are the total number of farm animals electrocuted on the 600 miles of live rail on the Southern system. Not one of these escaped on to the line by a level crossing, they were all cases of animals which were being entrained at the loading clocks, which escaped and bolted on to the open lines, and they were but a very small part of the total number of animals which did in fact bolt. A far larger number of the animals were not electrocuted but were killed by the trains. I am satisfied that there is no danger either to man or beast at our level crossings, and we endeavour—I believe successfully—to make it impossible for farm animals to leave the crossings.
It has been suggested that we ought to fence the whole of the line in such a way as to make it impossible for children to reach it. I wish it were possible to do that, but it is not. It must be remembered that in the length of the railway line there are innumerable sidings coming in from factories, warehouses, goods yards and so on, and there is a large number of crossings which cannot be shut off from the rest of the line. In other words, there are innumerable places from which a child wishing to do so could get access to the open line, even though the fencing were put up. At some time all of us have been boys. Can any hon. Member suggest a fence that we could not have got over if we had wanted to do so? It is idle to suggest that any

useful purpose would be served by endeavouring to make it impossible for children to reach the line when we know the determination and ingenuity of young people and when it is impossible to close all the sidings and crossings which would give them access to the line.
It has also been suggested that we might be able to fence the line so that small wild animals could not reach it. As far as we know, those small wild animals reach the line by going up the pipes which carry away the water, and we could not fence them. It is not a matter of fencing, and I think it would be vain to attempt to prevent children and small wild animals from reaching the line. Moreover, experience suggests that in the districts where the line has been electrified, the wild animals are learning the danger. We all know how animals, both wild and domestic, have gradually learned the danger of motor cars on the road. Those who were driving cars 30 or 35 years ago, as I was, remember the constant stupidity of chickens. We rarely went out without running over one.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: It was a question of the quick and the dead.

Sir G. Courthope: No, it was a question of their learning road sense, and they learned it. Experience suggests that the wild animals are also learning rail sense, and learning to avoid the places where they get a shock from the live rail. It is certain that very large numbers of them must touch the rail and get something of a shock without suffering the death penalty for so doing. No one wishes to kill wild animals. I am greatly distressed when I hear of an otter or a badger being killed, but we can devise no means of making it impossible—

Mr. Quibell: And foxes?

Sir G. Courthope: Not many foxes are killed. Presumably the foxes go over the live rail, whereas the badgers and otters creep under it. One is glad to think that they appear to be learning that the live rail is dangerous, and are avoiding it. The Noble Lord asked why, on the Southern Railway, we adopted the third-rail system instead of the overhead system. Before the formation of the Railway, two of its component parts had electrified suburban lengths of line. The London Brighton and South Coast Rail-


way was using the overhead system and the London and South Western Railway was using the third-rail system. Consequently, there were opportunities of judging the usefulness, dangers and practicability of both in competition, and it was as a result of that experience that the third-rail system was adopted. The principal reason is that the third-rail system is adapted to the multiple unit system, which enables the maximum service to be given in rush hours to congested districts, whereas the overhead system is more adapted to use by an electrical locomotive which cannot give the same rapid service in a congested district.

Earl Winterton: Why is it that the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the London and North Eastern Railway have adopted this system? Have they not adopted it in densely populated areas?

Sir G. Courthope: I cannot tell the Noble Lord, but I can tell him that the experience on the component parts of the Southern Railway was that it was impossible to run as many trains with the overhead system as it was with the multiple unit system. There is no doubt in our minds that, for the dense suburban traffic, the third-rail system is the better in every way. There is another point I would like to make with regard to the dangers. We employ many thousands of platelayers, permanent-way men and others whose daily work is in these electrified districts. We have not had a fatal accident from the live rail—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are supplied with rubber gloves."] Yes, but our experience is that the majority fear the live rail so little that the gloves are not worn.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Do they wear rubber boots?

Sir G. Courthope: The permanent-way men do not. There were several fatal accidents within a comparatively short distance of overhead line on the London Brighton and South Coast Railway during the few years that that system was in use. The overhead line requires a very much higher voltage—1,500 is the one laid' down—than that which is necessary in the third conductor line, which averages approximately 600, although we are entitled by the Order to go up to a maximum of 750. If contact is estab-

lished with the overhead line there is much graver risk than there is with the live rail. I hope I have said enough to satisfy the House, first, that the danger of the third-rail system has been much exaggerated; second, that it has been constructed and is operated strictly in accordance with the statutory orders; third, that all and more than all the safeguards required by law for the protection of man and beast have been provided; and, fourth, that the danger to persons and to farm animals has not been increased by electrification. In the districts where there has been electrification, increased fencing has been provided which makes access by trespassers and animals more difficult. There is, in addition, the fact that the electric train can be pulled up with much greater rapidity than the steam train. A certain proportion of accidents is avoided by that means. The advantages of these two factors, in our experience, more than compensate for any additional danger which there may be in the third-rail system.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can my hon. and gallant Friend see his way to bring to the notice of the hoard of directors of the Southern Railway the suggestion that, in all fairness to the port of Newhaven, road transport should be allowed to deal with goods coming into that port? At present it is not allowed.

Sir G. Courthope: I will certainly make that represent ation.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Montague: I do not know that Members on this side of the House are much concerned about the quarrel between the Southern Railway Company and the Kent and Surrey sportsmen. We have heard little about the deal motives behind the Opposition to this Bill, but there seems to be no doubt Mat the concern of those who have so successfully opposed this Bill up to the present and are still opposing it, is more of a sporting character than anything else. Certain figures have been given about the effects of the live rail on human life during a number of years. I think the figures of five fatalities and six fatalities, respectively, in two different years have been mentioned.

Brigadier-General Brown: Eleven within a year.

Mr. Montague: Hon. Members have not told us the extent of live rail covered by the figures or the circumstances accompanying those fatalities, and even the higher figure just mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member is nothing like the number of fatalities which occur upon any one road out of London with motor traffic. When it is argued that people are entitled to the use of the road but not to walk on the railway, that surely is a stronger reason for questioning the enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite about these fatalities, when we do not find the same enthusiasm on the question of safegarding the rights of pedestrians, including women and children, upon our roads. However, I am not so much concerned about that for the moment. I agree with the second part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) in which he referred to Clauses 13 to 15. I am sorry the last speaker in his defence of the Southern Railway did not deal with the point which was raised in connection with those Clauses. May I remind the House that Clause 15 provides:
Where this Act authorises the stopping up of a road or footpath or portion thereof without providing a substitute, such stopping up shall not take place except where the same is situate upon property of the company without the consent of the owners, lessees and occupiers of the houses and land abutting on both sides thereof.
The Clause goes on to deal with the question of compensation. That seems a rather dangerous power to give to the Southern Railway Company. It is a point which ought to be watched because there are other interests besides those of the owners, lessees and occupiers of the property abutting on these portions of land. But I think those are Committee points rather than points which affect the general issues covered by the Bill. If the Bill receives a Second Reading and is sent to a Committee, I am sure that my hon. Friends on that Committee will watch carefully what powers are conferred upon the company in that respect. I have not consulted all my hon. Friends on this side about this Bill. It is a Private Bill, and there may be differences of opinion upon it even among my hon. Friends. But I, personally, hope that the opposition to it will not culminate in the defeat of the Measure. This question of the live rail is a comparatively small matter, compared with some of the other

questions covered by the Bill. On the question of danger to life we must remember that the Bill abolishes a large number of level crossings and substitutes footbridges, and I imagine that there we have, at least, the prospect of something in the nature of a quid pro quo for the other provisions mentioned. These are matters for earnest consideration by the Committee but are no justification for voting against the Bill.
There is one point of serious importance which arises on Clause 31. That Clause enables the Southern Railway to carry out a project in connection with the extension of the Imperial Airways terminus on the Buckingham Palace Road site of Victoria Station. The intention is to provide facilities for air passengers making use of the railway system, particularly in connection with new developments in regard to Southampton and the Atlantic route. We have our own point of view about Imperial Airways, but whatever we may think about how civil aviation ought to be organised and conducted, the fact remains that that company is more than a private company. It is subsidised, it is supposed to represent an important public service, and there is Government representation on its board. It seems to me that this Bill ought to go to Committee in order that the question of the facilities required by new developments in civil aviation services from London should be considered.
I am not sure whether I have been correctly informed but I understand that there is an objection to cutting the blank wall in Buckingham Palace Road opposite the coaching station, a proposal which is dealt with in this Clause. It refers to a small portion of that not particularly aesthetic wall but the Duke of Westminster, I am told, is opposed to the project and insists upon the Southern Railway providing a quid pro quo, if he agrees with this proposal—apart altogether from this legislation being carried—by erecting an entirely unremunerative garage for public vehicles, taxi-cabs and so forth, at a very great cost. To this the Southern Railway, so I am told, are not prepared to agree, for the one reason more than another that it would not be used on the part of the taxicab drivers and that there is ample accommodation for them at present in reference to the necessities of the passenger service.

Earl Winterton: As I am a resident in the neighbourhood, may I say that this is a very old standing dispute, and I am not sure that the hon. Members opposite were not on our side in that matter when they were located in Eccleston Square. It is a dispute, not on the part of the Duke of Westminster, but of residents in the neighbourhood about the disposal of the taxicabs, which, it is contended, are a great nuisance to the inhabitants of Eccleston Square and neighbouring areas, not through any fault of the drivers themselves, but because of the railway company refusing to make accommodation for them on their premises. That is the essence of the dispute.

Mr. Montague: I will not argue the matter with the Noble Lord, because, after all, it is quite a minor point. It is a difficulty that ought to be overcome, but I am told, from the taxi drivers themselves, that they would not think of using a garage in that connection. They want to be in the station and alongside the trains. Anyhow, whether that is so or not, it seems to me that points of that kind, where these vested interests come in—whether the Labour party in Eccles-ton Square were on the side of these vested interests or not, I do not know—I think that fact ought not to be camouflaged in this House. If there is any virtue in the points that have been raised, there ought to be opportunity to discuss the question in Committee and to come to an agreement. For these reasons, and particularly in view of the real importance of the new developments in the airways system, I hope that a Division will not be pressed and that the House will let this Bill go to Committee, where these points can be adequately, and, I hope, temperately and fairly dealt with.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Boyce: The speeches to which we have listened from the hon. and gallant Members for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) and Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), in moving and seconding the rejection of the Bill, had a ring about them that was very familiar in this House a hundred years ago. The same exaggerated fears and arguments as were advanced against the live rail to-day were then advanced against the steam system, on behalf of the landowners, the huntsmen, and the farmers, in opposition to Bills to authorise the construction of our

earliest railways. When the Great Western Railway Bills of 1834 and 1835 were before this House, they were vigorously opposed by the Provost and Headmaster of Eton on the ground that they were dangerous to the scholars and would corrupt the morals and discipline of the school. Several masters gave evidence that that famous school would be ruined owing to the proximity of the railway, and they succeeded through their evidence in having a branch extension to Windsor struck out of the Bill; and it was not authorised until many years later. Subsequently, in a more enlightened age, we find that Eton College on several occasions actually engaged special trains over that system to send their children home for their holidays. I suggest, without wishing to be at all offensive, that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury, who was a distinguished member of that historic institution, represents the attitude of mind of the Eton of 1835 and that the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who was also a distinguished member of that school, represents the later and more enlightened attitude of mind which resulted in the running of those special trains. On the other hand, we find that the same fears that were expressed to-clay were firmly rejected from the outset by Harrow, which is so brilliantly represented in this House in the person of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). If the opposition that we have heard to-day had prevailed a century ago, the railways which are the product of British genius, enterprise, and perseverance would not have originated in this country. It is because we in this country are the pioneers of the railways that we have been called upon to build and equip railways all over the world, and wherever we have done so British trade has immediately taken root and begun to flourish.

Lord Ansley: Does the hon. Member realise that it is on account of this opposition to railways in the past from landowners and farmers that the railways in this country are the best provided with bridges and crossings in the world, with the result that they have an exceptionally fine permanent way and can maintain higher average speeds?

Mr. Boyce: I cannot accept the contention of the Noble Lord. It is certainly


due to the opposition to the railways that Kemble Tunnel, which is 415 yards long, was unnecessarily built, because the Squire of Kemble—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I do not think that has to do with the present Bill.

Mr. Boyce: No, Sir, but I did not know whether you were familiar with the locality of Kemble Tunnel. Unfortunately it was not this country which was the pioneer of electric traction as it was of steam traction. The application of electric transmission of power to the railways was first demonstrated by Dr. Siemens in the Berlin Exposition of 1879, and after that, as hon. Members know, electrification was rapidly developed in America, and the first electric railway worked in this country was, I think, the City and South London Railway, as lately as 1890. But—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Bill is solely concerned with the Southern Railway, and we must not wander over the railway systems of the country.

Mr. Boyce: I was making the point, but did not get there quickly enough, that while we cannot claim to have been the pioneers of electric traction, the Southern Railway Company, who are the promoters of this Bill, by their progressive policy have given us the largest, the safest, and the most successful electrified suburban system in the world to-day.
As a result of investigations carried out by the Kennedy Committee in 1921, the Pringle Committee in 1927, and the Ministry of Transport Order of 1932, and as we have been told by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, only two systems of electrification were legally open to the Southern Railway. They tried both systems. As a result of practical experience they decided, in 1930, to abandon the overhead system on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Section and to adopt the third rail system, which had been in operation over other sections of their system since 1915. I suggest to the House that it is reasonable for us to assume that those who are responsible for the direction and management of the Southern Railway know best which of these two systems suits their requirements.
The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) mentioned that the advent of the live rail in country districts was supposed to interfere with fox hunting and that he, like many others in this House, suspected that that fact carried a good deal of weight with those who were objecting to this Bill. If a fox which was hard pressed by hounds managed to get itself electrocuted, I suggest that it would be lucky rather than otherwise. There have been over 1,000 railways worked in this country as a result of Bills passed in this House, and during the past century the foxhunters have been very busy indeed. If you consult the old sporting books which were published at the time when the railways themselves were first being constructed, you will find there an almost universal prediction that foxhunting would cease finally and irrevocably in those areas in which railways were allowed to run. The expectation of traffic density at that time was infinitesimal as compared with the facts to-day, and yet we find that there is more foxhunting to-day in those very areas where the trains run than there has ever been before. Fears were expressed and opposition raised on behalf of the foxhunting community when the third rail system was being authorised by Parliament more than zo years ago, but experience shows that the danger to foxhunting was no greater under a system of electric traction than it was under a system of steam traction. By law the Southern Railway Company and all the railway companies are obliged to fence their track with an eight-strand fence. The Southern Railway, in fact, within the electrified area uses 10 strands, and if a particular hunt wish to have another type of fence, they can build one at their own expense, as has been done in certain cases.
Because adults trespass upon a railway and receive electric shocks that is not, I suggest, a valid argument that can possibly be used against the railway company. It was interesting to hear from the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury that he had such a hair raising experience after a glass of sherry on a dark and stormy night when he arrived at Faygate and had great difficulty in crossing the line without being electrocuted. It transpires that to this day the electric line does not run through that station at all.

Brigadier-General Brown: The sherry was provided by the Chairman of the Southern Railway at our interview. The dark and stormy night was another time, and I did not say that the line was electrified. I spoke of the difficulties of getting across the line even when it was not electrified, and of how much more dangerous it would be if it were.

Mr. Boyce: I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on having so successfully crossed the line without being electrocuted when there was no contactor rail for miles around. The case of children, especially those of tender years, is an entirely different matter, and we take a different view of them in the House from the view we take of adults who wilfully trespass on the railway and get an electric shock. Much has been done and is being done by the Southern Railway in excess of the requirements of the Minister of Transport in order to protect straying children of tender years. On both sides of the House there are several Members who are specially interested in this problem in their capacity of members of county and other councils, and who will agree that the Southern Railway Company has shown a readiness to take reasonable steps whenever representations have been made to them in order to avoid dangers of this sort to small children. A railway track which everyone knows to be electrified is a much safer place than any public road, than any canal, than the cliffs at Dover or anywhere else. I suggest that the railways, which are rendering a great service to the community, are entitled to be treated reasonably when they bring forward a Bill of this kind.
The question of the amenities of the countryside is perhaps relevant to this question. By merely adding a third rail you cannot possibly alter the appearance of a railway. If, on the other hand, the overhead system is adopted, it is a worse eyesore than the pylons which are erected by the Electricity Commission and which have caused so much adverse comment. Moreover, the danger to aviation, especially in times of fog, of having hundreds of miles of trip wire above the ground is far greater than anything that can result from having the third rail. If we reject this Bill we will not only be taking a reactionary and retrograde step, but we will reject a Measure the

main purpose of which is to render greater facilities to the public which are urgently wanted and which comply in every respect with the procedure and regulations which this House itself has laid down.

9.0 p.m.

Earl Winterton: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) is well known to be an enthusiastic supporter of the railways. So enthusiastic is he that at two railway company annual meetings recently he got up and paid profuse compliments to the management and directors. We are, therefore, interested to hear his views on the railway question this evening.

Mr. Boyce: Does the Noble Lord suggest that those compliments were not fully justified?

Earl Winterton: I do not say whether they were justified or not. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to put his point of view, but he is not an unbiased party in the matter. He is entitled to put the point of view of the railway stockholder, and those of us who are not railway stockholders, but who are concerned with the interests of the public, and, as in my case, with the views of the local authorities, are entitled to put our view; and I deprecate suggestions that there has been any exaggeration on either side. I rather take the view of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, with whom I do not often find myself in agreement, that this Bill ought to go to a Committee. I think, however, that meanwhile on the Second Reading stage, we who represent the districts through which the railway passes—in my case the only member representing a county which has actually passed a resolution protesting against the Bill—are entitled to make our voices heard. I rather regret the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who adopted an almost truculent attitude, and, in the most condemnatory manner, accused my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) and those who oppose the Bill of having been guilty of gross exaggeration. The day may come when he may find the support of hon. Members on this side of the House quite useful, for there are, I understand, members of the House who would like to see the railways taken away from the present owners.

Mr. Ede: It is only a question of price.

Earl Winterton: I will not pursue that subject now, for I would be out of order. I have received a letter officially from the County Council of West Sussex asking me to bring before the House a resolution that they have passed on this subject. It is as follows:
That representation be made to the Minister of Transport drawing his attention to the danger to persons employed in agricultural work, to farm stock and other animals likely to arise from the proposed extension of the electrification of the Southern Railway in West Sussex and urging that in approving the electrification the Minister will hold an inquiry into alternative safer methods of electrification; and that if the live-rail system is employed the Minister will insist that all possible steps are taken to protect the live rail in such a way that persons and animals will not be liable to come in contact with it particularly in the neighbourhood of occupation and other level crossings provided for the use of farmers and others whose properties are severed by the present railway line.
I understand that that resolution was passed by a very large majority and was based upon resolutions sent to the county council by the local branches of the National Farmers' Union and of the Central Landowners' Association.
I suggest that the question resolves itself into this: The Southern Railway are committed to this particular system of electrification. I was not much impressed by the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend or with the arguments of the chairman and manager of the railway, which they used when we went to them on a deputation, that it is the best system. It is a curious and interesting fact that other railways are not using that system; they are using the overhead system. We do recognise, however, that, for good or evil, the Southern Railway are committed to this system, and no one suggests that they should abandon it. I, at any rate, do not, and my constituents do not. What we ask is that reasonable precautions should be taken to see that the live rail is safe. The question resolves inself into two parts. Is it possible to board the line? We are told it would cost ego per double track mile.

Sir G. Courthope: Over £400.

Earl Winterton: The information given to us was that & is the figure. I took a note of it at the time. I regret that my hon. and gallant Friend did not deal with it in his speech, because that is one of the points on which we want informa-

tion. Is it or is it not possible to protect the live rail by boarding? We were told by the company that objection was taken to that method by the railway employés, whose interests should be a first consideration from the point of view of safety, but the information which has reached my hon. and gallant Friend and me in private conversations with railway employes is that they would regard it as a source of protection to themselves if the live rail could be boarded. That is the first point we would like to have answered.
If it is not possible to board the live rail we come to the question of providing effective protection for children and wild and tame animals. The railway company has admitted that there is danger by erecting special fences at certain places near schools. It does not seem to be a matter of very great importance whether one child or a dozen children are killed by electrification, it is equally bad. Nor can I follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite when he said, as I understood him, "What is the use of worrying about a few deaths on the railway when you have all these deaths on the roads?"

Mr. Montague: That was not my point. My point was that there is an explanation of the sudden enthusiasm for human safety on the part of certain Members of this House when it is a question of fox-hunting and not a question of motoring.

Earl Winterton: I should be out of order if I pursued that point, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair debater, will accept my assurance when I tell him that I would have infinitely more stringent rules for the roads than we have at present. But because there is an appalling toll of deaths on the road—a death roll which ought to be a matter of shame to every Member of this House—is that any reason for making the railways less safe? I cannot see any sense in that argument. Some of the railways say, "Look how few people are killed on our railways compared with the large number who are killed on the roads." But what on earth has that to do with it? Unquestionably some people have been killed by this live rail system, and the question is: Is it or is it not possible—I would put that suggestion through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the Committee which will eventually consider the Bill—to abate that danger? We


suggest that it is possible to do it by the use of fencing.
An hon. Member referred to foxhunting and other field sports. That consideration does come into the question; it would be disingenuous to deny it, but the opposition of my farmer constituents has nothing to do with foxhunting. Many of them are not even foxhunters, and some of them may be opposed to fox-hunting. In my constituency there are a number of small farmers who are—I hope I shall not get into trouble with my constituents for using the phrase—what I may call peasant farmers, employing their own families to work their farms with, at the most, one labourer. Some of these farms are bisected by the railway, having two fields on one side of the line and two on the other, and those people are really frightened that their stock will be injured unless the railway company will take effective means of fencing the line. Every individual has to fence his property. It is the common law. Every agricultural Member knows that a man is supposed to protect his land with fences, and that should be done by the railway company.
Even if it were solely a question of field sports I would not hesitate, because I have always tried to be frank with this House, to press for fencing. We are not here discussing the value or otherwise of field sports, but as long as they go on, and they have gone on for hundreds of years, there is no reason why innocent animals like hounds or retrievers should be subject to death by electrocution. It is not only a question of sporting dogs. An enormous number of cats are killed in the London area. Some hon. Members appear to regard that as humorous, but I am not sure that the owners of those cats would take the same view. Judging by the number of letters we have had lately on other aspects of cruelty to animals the public feel very strongly on the subject. The railway company have put out a memorandum—incidentally, I do not think it was particularly well-worded or impressive—in which they have suggested that the only damage caused by the third rail has been to a few cats in the London area. I understand that a large number have been killed, and certainly a number of dogs have been killed.
There is one other aspect of the case which ought to appeal to the House.

There is no question that without effective protection much wild life is destroyed by this third rail. I am not referring to game animals like foxes or pheasants, but to animals like badgers, with which no one but ruthless people would interfere, because they are an interesting survival, and a number of birds, including some rare birds. It is interesting to note that in an area of Sussex where, as far as I know, the badgers are quite undisturbed, no fewer than 22 badgers were killed on the railway within six months. My hon. and gallant Friend says they will soon learn by expuience not to get killed. In other words, the Southern Railway want to run this third rail system through a purely rural district and say, "Well, if we do kill a few animals at first, they will soon learn not to be killed; they will learn not to go near the Southern Railway." All that those who are opposing this Bill in the interests of the countryside ask is, that reasonable precautions should be taken to see that the third rail does as little damage as possible. There ought to be more effective protection at certain spots. We wish all accommodation crossings to be maintained, because real hardship is done to a small farmer if his accommodation crossing is taken away. The ideal which we should like to see would be a form of fencing which would make it difficult, if not impossible, for young children, would-be suicides, any human being who wants to stray on the railway for any reason, or wild animals, to get on to the line. We ask all these things, and if we do not go to a Division we hope that will not mean that the Committee will not take them into consideration.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Walkden: We on this side of the House would not wish to support a railway Bill if there were any evidence of real injustice, carelessness, culpable negligence or anything else that was reprehensible in the action of the railway company promoting the Measure, but so far, I suggest, no such evidence has come before the House. The petition against the Bill from a local authority, to which the Noble Lord referred, can surely be dealt with in the normal course if and when the Bill goes to Committee upstairs. I have risen to suggest that we ought to do nothing to prevent the Bill from going forward. We here are as much interested in the wild life of our


own country as hon. Members opposite, though we do not hunt wild creatures, and feel that the greatest suffering can be caused to an animal by hunting it. For animals to fight one another does not cause them as much suffering as hunting. I know nothing more horrible than the cry of a hare which is being hunted by hounds. But it is a little unfortunate that hunting considerations have intruded themselves into this Debate when we have just been considering the fate of hundreds of thousands of our fellow creatures who are unemployed and suffering acutely.
To come back to the Bill, I have heard nothing in the statements about it so far which could not properly be dealt with in Committee or, if they are out of order in Committee, which would not be dealt with the Company's directors and managers if they were approached. As one having to deal with railway companies on questions affecting railway labour, I have pleasure in saying that the Southern Railway Company are certainly not the least reasonable of the railway companies. They are always ready to receive us and we always get a very fair hearing. Everybody's case is met. My hon. Friends on these benches know how true that statement is. I am not saying that the other railways have not the same disposition to-day. They have changed very much from the nineteenth century attitude of mind described by an hon. Gentleman who spoke from below the Gangway opposite. I am confident that anything which has been complained of can be dealt with in the proper way.
The large consideration which the House should keep in mind is that electrical transport can be carried through much more rapidly and safely, because of the quicker pull-up which was so ably described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the railway companies. You can get pretty well three trains running with electricity as against two with steam. There is the tremendous public advantage that the people in the South of England can be transported much more rapidly by rail than by road. I use Waterloo Station every day, and I shudder to think what would be the state of the roads if only one-tenth of the passengers who now use that station had to go by road. The Southern Railway are performing a great public service in

accelerating their transport and enabling the enormous numbers of people who travel between the Metropolis and the South Coast to do so quickly by train in-8 stead of by road. That is the overwhelming consideration which we should take into account, and we should give to this railway company, in their enterprise in electrifying their railway, every encouragement to go ahead.

9.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I am not going to intervene in this Debate for any length of time. Hon. Members have, I think quite rightly, taken the opportunity offered by the Bill to debate the subject of railway electrification. I welcome the Debate, and so do other hon. Members, as helping to clear away certain misconceptions and bringing to the notice of the railway companies the fears which are held by certain Members of this House. I need not remind hon. Members, because that has been done by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) that the Bill does not deal with the powers to electrify the lines in West Sussex. Those powers are conferred by previous Acts. Such matters of electrification as are dealt with in the Bill are to implement an agreement come to with the Treasury in 1935, and scheduled in the Southern Railway Act of last year, those agreements being part of the big scheme of railway work which was sanctioned by this House in 1935. I hope, as hon. Members on all sides and taking every view have said, that after the Debate is concluded the Bill may be allowed to proceed to Committee.
As regards the controversy about the live-rail system, this, as the hon. and gallant Member for Rye has said, is one of the two systems of railway electrification approved by the Minister of Transport under the Railways (Standardisation of Electrification) Order, 1932, and has been adopted by the Southern Railway in regard to suburban lines and extensions of those lines where certain technical and traffic considerations exist, and the Minister has not thought it necessary to take objection to this system on the grounds of safety. It must not be assumed that this system would be regarded by the Minister as the most suitable or economical for new or further extensions of electrification, where different technical and traffic considerations exist


For instance, I would remind the House that the overhead system is now being adopted by the two northern companies —for example, the electrification of the Liverpool Street-Shenfield and the Sheffield-Manchester lines. Very careful attention has been given by my Department to this question of safety, and it is on the aspect of safety that practically all the Debate has taken place. Certain obligations are laid down as regards fencing under Section 68 of the Railway Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845. In practice, the railways go further than their obligations. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye gave certain illustrations of what they are trying to do.
I can say that special attention is paid both by the railways and by the inspecting officers of my Department to places where trespass may be expected. Our inspectors are continually examining this aspect of the matter and trying to see that as few accidents as possible take place. Special precautions which my Department consider adequate are also taken at all the level crossings—and by level crossing I mean the public level crossing, the occupational crossing, the footpath crossing and stations—so that wherever persons and animals are allowed on the line the line is fully protected. There again, our inspecting officers do their best to see that proper protection is afforded. On any railway, whether it is electrified or not, there must be some element of danger, in spite of the precautions which are taken, if people make their way on to portions of the line where they have no right to be.
The total number of fatalities due to contact with the live rail on the Southern Railway, during the five years 1932–36, was 21, of which 19 were trespassers. I would say in conclusion that we shall consider very carefully the suggestions which have been made to-night and the resolution to which the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) referred, in order to see whether any further safeguards are both necessary and practical.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Amery: After listening to this Debate, I rather wonder whether we might not be guilty of gross irrelevancy,

when I remind the House that the primary object of the Measure before us is not electrification but the no less vital matter of aviation. The Bill aims at improving matters in aviation. It makes provision for adequate headquarters of that great national institution, Imperial Airways. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) pointed out that whatever criticism some Members of the House may wish to direct at this or that feature of Imperial Airways, as a national institution, it is important that it should be as efficient as possible. The other provision of the Bill is to afford railways access to an aerodrome which we believe to be the most valuable aerodrome in the neighbourhood of London and, more particularly, the safest aerodrome, lying as it does outside the fog area. When we are discussing the question of safety we should remember that the passing of this Measure and the opening up of that aerodrome may help to avoid a good many of the accidents which arise in aviation. Incidentally, too, that aerodrome may be of considerable national importance.

Lord Apsley: Which aerodrome is it?

Mr. Amery: Lullingstone. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), after a little preliminary praise, made a general attack on the Southern Railway for its autocratic behaviour and instanced that in the last few years it had introduced six or seven Bills. Those Bills made provision for Southampton Docks, the construction of a train ferry, the building of an extra tunnel for safety at Dover, and things of that kind None of those matters is evidence of an autocratic tendency. Those Bills, like the present, contained a number of Clauses with regard to sites which are common form. To come to the main case of the argument against the electrified system of the Southern Railway, I cannot help feeling that the main weight of the attack comes not from those who have had experience of electrification but from those who fear the unknown dangers which electrification may bring.
The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) gave what I suggest was rather a typical illustration of these fears. He described the perils in pre-electricity days of crossing on a dark and windy night the level crossing at his station and indicated how


much greater these dangers might be when electricity came. He was evidently under the impression that the live rail would go through the level crossing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) has pointed out that at every level crossing the live rail is discontinued for some distance on each side and that the electricity is carried underneath the level crossing in a cable, and that for the risks which the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury outlined to be real the hon. Member would have to get down on his knees, tear up the heavy creosoted beams, dig down to the cables, strip the cables of their insulation and, making sure that his hands were wet, and that his boots also were wet, would have to press his hands against the electric wires. The risk is of an infinitesimal character. But it does illustrate that in these cases 'there is a very human tendency to exaggerate the dangers of any new system. In our own lifetime the most extravagant fears were expressed of the disaster which would follow if motor vehicles were allowed to move at a speed of more than four miles an hour without a man with a red flag proceeding in front of them.

Mr. Macquisten: Thousands are killed and mutilated by motor cars.

Mr. Amery: Does anyone suggest that in this country we should go back to four miles an hour?

Mr. Macquisten: We should make special roads for motors.

Mr. Amery: That also is very desirable. The danger to adults of electrification is infinitesimal unless they are deliberately aiming at suicide. The danger to cattle also is infinitesimal. In six years six horses, two bullocks and one pig have been killed, not one of these as a result of straying on to a level crossing, but in loading or unloading from a train. The real danger is the danger to children who cannot read notices and make deliberate attempts to get over fences. I have looked at some of these cases where children have been killed, and the astonishing thing is the effort they have made in order to get on to the line. They have climbed six-feet fences. Two children have helped a third child of four over a five-feet fence. It is difficult to remove completely the element of danger to children, but I am certain that where it can the company will do its utmost to

remove such dangers. I do not think that the danger will go on increasing, but that children will learn that a railway is a dangerous thing. Even as wild animals have learned something, so accidents to children will be reduced.
The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) admitted that it would be difficult for the Southern Railway to change the system which it has adopted. It is perfectly true that other companies have adopted another system, but when that system was adopted the Southern Railway had experience of both systems. It came to the conclusion from the experience it had that the third rail, enabling trains to be run on the multiple system, with power in each coach, gave much greater flexibility and much greater power in handling the unprecedented problem of suburban traffic in London, and any contribution in handling that problem by reducing pressure on the roads is a real contribution to the safety of the public. From the point of view of actual safety it is worth while remembering that the third rail is conducted on a comparatively low voltage, 660 volts, which is fatal only in particular circumstances. The overhead wire is conducted at the much more dangerous voltage of 1,500, and when by any chance, as in a snowstorm, a break occurs and the wire is down, the real danger is much greater. As a matter of fact, the fatal casualties on the overhead section of the Southern Railway before it was changed—I do not say that this is conclusive—were actually greater than the fatal casualties on the other section.

Earl Winterton: There is considerable fear in some parts that with the new system, if we get a heavy snowstorm the railway will be put out of action for a considerable time. I understand that that is not likely to happen where there is an overhead wire.

Mr. Amery: I was just coming to that point. Experience on the Continent and elsewhere has been, that the danger to overhead wires from snowstorms is considerable. There are other objections. There is the objection of the effect on the amenities of the countryside. There is the possibility of risk to aeroplanes, as well as the greater vulnerability of an overhead system to damage in war-time from projectiles and so on. My Noble Friend really admitted that it was im-


possible to ask the railway company, which has established with so much enterprise and at such vast cost its existing system, radically to change that system, but he asked for specific safeguards, and in particular he mentioned the safeguard of boarding the live rail, as is done at certain small sections immediately next to level crossings.
The expense of that, I understand, is something in the nature of £430 per mile for each track, and not £90, as my Noble Friend mentioned. At the same time the main objection is not on the ground of expense, but because, first of all, it adds greatly to the difficulties of the work of platelaying and inspection; and, further, there is always some danger of paper and straw and other things getting under the boards and increasing the risk of fire from sparks; while, lastly, there is the point that my Noble Friend has just raised. One of the strongest objections to boarding is the danger, in case of a heavy snowstorm, of snow packing between the board and the rail and putting the line out of action. Otherwise, snow by itself is not a very serious difficulty in the way of the use of the third rail. These objections have been felt by the Southern Railway Company, after careful examination, to be really conclusive.
It comes down to the fact that adequate and reasonable precautions should be taken wherever possible in order to avoid the risk of danger. Some element of danger, as the Minister has pointed out, must inevitably exist. The company have already done a great deal more than they are legally obliged to do in order to mitigate that danger, but they are ready to go further, and, wherever representations are made in a specific locality to the effect that danger exists, to look into the question and make an attempt to meet it. I do not think it is possible to go further than that and suggest a wholesale rearrangement or reconstruction of a great railway system, not on the ground of proved heavy losses, but mainly on the strength of fears which, I believe, experience will show are not realised. For these reasons I trust that a Measure so important in itself will be allowed to secure a Second Reading, so that any points that may be presented by the Measure itself can be dealt with in Committee.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman did not find time in the course of his speech to reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who raised one point which is causing very grave concern to those of us who have to do with the administration of rural highways in the neighbourhood of this railway. He has pointed out that for quite legitimate reasons, owing to the nature of the area served by the railway, and, may I also say, very largely through the enterprise of the railway company, the company have come to this House several times in recent years with Bills providing for the diversion or stopping up of footpaths. It is very desirable that as far as possible these footpaths should be continued along the existing line, and the railway company themselves have done a great deal, by their series of Sunday rambles, to persuade the people of London and its suburbs to use those footpaths. There are in the present Bill two instances of the kind alluded to by my hon. Friend, where, in or the case a bridle path, and in the other case a footpath, will, to my certain knowledge, be completely spoiled by the proposals in the Bill. One of these is near Godalming Station. I sometimes take lunch at the Winterton Arms at Chiddingfold—

Earl Winterton: I hope that the hon. Member finds the beer quite good.

Mr. Ede: I have never sampled the beer yet, but the port and lemon is excellent. I then proceed by footpath to Godalming Station—a very beautiful walk. There is a proposal in Clause Do that:
The Company may stop up and discontinue the bridle way and road crossing the Portsmouth direct railway on the level at the southern end of Godalming station and may substitute therefor a bridle way and road on the Western side of that railway extending from Westbrook Road to a point in New Way 290 yards south-west of Westbrook Road.
I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman what that means to people who, like myself, use these bridle-paths for the purpose of walking. We can get down into Godalming town, on such a journey as I have mentioned, direct across the railway at this point, but the effect of the diversion will be that we shall have


to travel along the side of the railway for 290 yards, cross over it, and then come back another 290 yards to reach a point which is now only the width of the railway away; and may I say that 580 yards of the Southern Railway near Godalming Station is a very poor termination to an enjoyable ramble? I can only hope that in cases like that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the pedestrian public, who have been brought to the district, in most cases, by his own railway, have some right to consideration when these diversions are proposed. There is a similar one in connection with another footpath in the parish of Rusper in the rural district of Horsham, where it is proposed to divert the footpath so as to carry it away from the point where it now crosses the railway to an accommodation level crossing. This may quite possibly lead to the stopping up and failure to use one end or the other of the existing footpath, to the great detriment, I believe, of the comfort of people who desire to keep as far away as they can on Sundays and during the week-ends from the great roads on which motors are to be found.

Earl Winterton: The local ramblers' society, of which I am chairman, have protested very strongly against this particular diversion, and I am in communication with the railway company on the subject.

Mr. Ede: The next time I am in the Winterton Arms, I hope the Noble Lord will see that they treat me for having voiced a view that he might very well have voiced when he was speaking.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Another United Front!

Mr. Ede: When the right hon. Gentleman takes from i,000 to 1,200 people into this district on a Sunday, it must be assumed that he does not do it at a loss, and it is surely in his own interest to see that these footpaths are preserved, when necessity requires them to be dealt with, so that the people's access to the countryside shall not be seriously disturbed. During recent years there have been several of these cases, and I hope that the railway company, when they promote other Bills, will see that as far as possible the line of the footpath is preserved—that it is carried if possible across the railway on some light bridge that will be no eye-

sore, but will enable people who want to follow the existing line of the path to do so. I am sure that in that way they will be serving their own interests as well as ours. I could have wished that the Surrey County Council had been as successful as apparently the West Sussex County Council have been in persuading the railway company to give us stronger fences when they bring their electrification to the side of a school playground. I think that when they do that they should take such steps as will prevent small children attending the infants' department of the school from crawling through these wire strands. I am sure it would not be a very expensive matter for it to be done. There may not have been many accidents but, with the number of accidents on the road and the fear of electrification on the railway, a good many mothers are seriously concerned about their children all the time they are absent from home. If some rabbit wire of fairly wide mesh could be placed along the fence very small children, who cannot be expected always to realise the danger, and who will try to get through to get a flower or something that they see on the bank, would be protected.
I join in what has been said by several Members in regard to the enterprise of the railway company and their magnificent achievement in re-arranging the entrance and exit from Waterloo Station, whereby the suburban traffic to the South West of London has been improved by their new electrification. I hope that, as they carry it through, they will realise that, if their power is that of a giant, they will occasionally persuade us that even modern giants, which have neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be saved, can exercise their powers kindly.

9.46 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Clarke: As a very young Member, I rise with considerable diffidence, knowing that I shall be accused by some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House of being an Etonian of 1836, and I have to confess to hon. Members opposite that I am a fox hunter. At the same time, I am very fond of animals, wild and tame, and it is largely on their account that I am speaking. I am not opposing the Bill but I should like to express my deep hope that some of the suggestions that have been made for strengthening the fences alongside the


electrified line will be carried out, and not only along the line described in the Bill but also on that part of it that was electrified previously. I can quite see that a change in the system of transmission would not be possible or economic to-day, but I feel that something should be done in the matter of fencing. I live 2½ miles from the main London-Brighton line, which has been electrified for a good many years. During the last two years I have had the misfortune to be concerned in accidents in which four hounds and one other dog have been killed and a number of others injured. I am not going to suggest that those accidents are comparable with the human tragedies that we have been told of, but, all the same, they are very painful. It is quite wrong, too, to say that death caused in this way is instantaneous. In many cases it is not. I also noticed, when I was helping to pull some of these animals off the line, that the platelayers were extremely careful, and made me very careful, in touching them. They certainly appreciated that there was some danger there.
In the summer of 1936 a branch line which goes within half a mile of my house and crosses my property was also electrified. This gave me a good deal of anxiety. I realised that, when a line which has not had a great deal of traffic on it is electrified, it takes some time for humans and animals to appreciate the danger. I realised that children would have to be watched because, apart from schools, there are isolated farms and cottages, the farmers' dogs would have to be kept tied up, hunting would be curtailed, sporting dogs kept on the lead, and practically every badger and otter would be killed. We once actually picked up seven badgers in a distance of about two miles. I therefore approached the railway company and asked if I might put up some extra fencing which would keep larger animals and small children off the line. I was met with the utmost courtesy and every facility was given me to put the wire up. It is about five feet high, turned outwards at the top, so that any animal that jumps against it is thrown back, and it is turned up a little at the bottom, too. It extends for about one and three-quarter miles on either side of the line and the cost was not excessive—I believe under £350. I, of course, used local materials and employed my

own workmen as far as possible, and the railway fence formed the basis and is an integral part of it. I am not prepared to say that it is perfect—in many ways it is a makeshift—but it is about as much as a private individual can do, and it has achieved its main purpose. The live rail is no longer a threat to hounds, small children and other wild animals.
There is practically no fence that a good boy cannot get over and I feel that, before any permanent fence was made, it would be quite a good thing to consult authorities from Whipsnade or the Zoological Gardens, who are used to fencing in practically every sort of animal. One could get some good ideas from them as to methods of fencing, not very expensive, which could be put all along the line and which would keep children and grown-up people and animals off entirely. There are difficulties about sidings, but there are many miles in rural areas where there are no sidings, and access for platelayers and gangers could be provided by padlocked gates put into the fence. It would cost a certain amount of money but I imagine that the people who use the Southern Railway are mostly season ticket holders who go to London every day on business. I believe that, in order to preserve their amenities, they would be prepared to spend a fraction more on their season tickets if they knew that safety would be ensured to their neighbours both human and animal.
I, and I expect most other Members, have received a good many letters in the last week or two about the Export of Horses Bill which comes on on Friday. That seems to indicate clearly the state of the public conscience in regard to animals being maltreated. It supports, too, what I say, that people would be prepared to spend perhaps a very small fraction more on their tickets to get safety for them. In conclusion may I say this: We in the South of England appreciate what the Southern Railway has done for us. We realise that we owe them a great debt. Is it too much to ask one more favour, that they will give us the most complete protection possible for man and beast from the electric line?

9.55 p.m.

Lord Apsley: There are three matters, two of which have not been raised at all and one which has been touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for


Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), to which I want to refer. The question of the actual wisdom, from the railway companies' point of view, of electrifying railways in rural districts has not been mentioned in any way. In the normal case this would be for the directors and shareholders to settle among themselves, but in this particular case the Southern Railway is spending money on electrification of rural areas which has been loane4 .10 it by Parliament. If it had not that money loaned by Parliament, it is extremely doubtful whether the Southern Railway would have thought of these various extensions. Therefore, it is right that Parliament should go into this question since these are public moneys loaned by the tax payer. Other railways are spending money received from Parliament upon improving the rolling stock, permanent way, and improving stations and on ordinary maintenance, which they would not have been able to do otherwise, but the Southern Railway has decided to commit itself to this adventure of electrifying rural lines. It is arguable that in an outer belt of a suburban area, which is likely to be built over, electrification can be justified, though even this is a "forward" or speculative policy; but when it comes to electrifying rural lines—and it is well known that there must be a certain density of population present before the capital expenditure for electrifying railways can be met out of future profits—it is extremely doubtful whether the Southern Railway should not take a more cautious view of the case before proceeding with the matter.
I confess, like most other hon. Members, that I was not very much impressed by the arguments brought forward by hon. Members who represent the Southern Railway in this Debate. First of all they tried to make out that there was not very much danger, and that you could sit on a rail and it was very doubtful whether you got a shock at all. I do not think that hon. Members themselves would like to try it. I should hesitate very much before I would ask them to give us a demonstration. The figures go to prove that that cannot be the case. The figures of five children in 1934, six in 1935, and II in 1936 are not very large, it is true, yet they are frightening figures. If only one child were killed it is a matter that Parliament should consider.
There is another question which has not been dealt with at all. When a live rail on an electric line runs through rural districts it means that none of the farmers adjacent to the railway can run either pigs, poultry or ducks in any of the fields adjoining the railway. It means that all idea of this branch of farming must be definitely abandoned over a very large area, just because an electric railway happens to run through it. Of course their must be safeguards. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) to put it before his Board that they must take precautions, and I suggest that if they cannot, as in America, safeguard the live rail or, as in the North of England, adopt the overhead line, they should consider the question of fencing. It is easy to obtain fencing which no child can get over at all. Near my home the Great Western Railway have several very dangerous cuttings between tunnels which are death traps to children or animals. They have put up ordinary wire fencing reinforced with rabbit wire and the top hooped outwards so that no animal can possibly get over, I suggest that the advice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Lieut.-Colonel Clarke) should be taken to consult the Country Gentleman's Association or, as he suggested, Whipsnade on the cheapest form of fencing which would make the line completely safe for the rural population.
Turning now to a matter mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook—and he was the only Member who spoke of it—that Clause 31 is adapted for the production of a new aerodrome for London, let me say I am very glad to hear that the Southern Railway are taking this step. At last it appears that we shall have an aerodrome which can be reached from the heart of London in a very short time by rail. That is the only possible way by which an air line to London can prosper. Every year the streets of London become more congested, every year traffic conditions become worse, and the railways are the only way by which you can get into the heart of London from an aerodrome. I hope that there will be a 20-minute or even faster service from central London to the aerodrome. I hope that the railway company will make that aerodrome free to all users including operators providing they


do not compete, and I also hope that private owners are given facilities at the cheapest possible cost and that they will not be driven away by high charges and red tape, as has been the case at Croydon.
Lastly, let me mention another example of lack of co-operation. When the railway companies entered the aviation industry existing operators were very glad to see them come in. They saw the advantage of big concerns coming in with plenty of capital behind them, but when railway air services started operating, the existing operators found to their dismay that they were very severely handicapped by one unfortunate coincidence. The booking agents are used considerably by railway companies, and the railway services immediately made an application to the booking agencies that they must not book for any operating line except those run by the railways or by Imperial Airways. This has had the effect that no other companies except those particular groups can use the booking agencies in any way. Any individual wanting to travel from any air port in England to the Continent or to use an internal service in England, by any company other than Railway Air Services or Imperial Airways is unable to get any information from any booking office in the country. He has no means of knowing what the services are. I hope that in the interest of aviation this matter may be dealt with in a friendly way. All companies, where they do not actually compete on the same line, which would be foolishness, should be offered full facilities through the recognised booking offices, so that there should not be that attempt by one group to eliminate information about others.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
The reason I move the Amendment is because the Bill introduces a totally new principle with regard to the motor industry in the country. I want to make it plain at tl7e outset that this is an example of municipal training which those of us who doubt some of its manifestations regard as being mischievous in the extreme, but I also desire to commend the Amendment to the House for the reason that the kind of municipal training which is proposed in the Bill is of a very extraordinary type. Hitherto, whenever a Motion has been made in this House, for the purpose of handing over the transport of an area to any particular Board, all forms of transport have been included in the Measure. This Bill does not deal with all classes of transport. It provides, except quite inferentially in Clause 52, nothing in the way of coordination in the form of transport, and it deals with a very wide area, a very great deal of which is wholly rural in character. The Bill, therefore, is aimed at a principle which is entirely different from the principle which was attacked by this House under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) in the London Passenger Transport Bill of 1931. In the Debate on that Measure comment was made by the right hon. Member for South Hackney on attempts which had previously been made to deal with the problem of London Transport by means of Bills other than public Bills. He said, on 23rd March, 1931:
It was a subject of essentially public policy that ought to have been dealt with by public legislation, on the responsibility of the Government of the day.
I and those of my friends who are supporting me think that a Measure of this sort is one the principle of which should be brought before the House for the House to determine, with a responsible Minister, who can lay before the House all the information we need, in charge of the Measure, so that we may have an opportunity of discussing a matter which we regard as of considerable importance in connection with the motor industry. An interesting thing is that in the very considerable number of com-


munications which I have received, not merely from my own constituents but from all over the country, are a very large number from small people owning only one vehicle who find themselves in a position of insecurity as the result of what is proposed in this Bill. Time is late, and I do not want to dilate too much on that aspect of the case, but there are two or three other aspects which are well worthy of our consideration.
The Bill proposes that 17 local authorities spread over 20 local government areas should have the whole of their transport conducted by a board. That board is to consist of 39 persons. Those 39 persons are to come as to a majority of them from two local authorities, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under Lyme. The rest of the local authorities, except three, are to have a single member each, and the other three are to have no representation on the board. The individuals who are to comprise the board are to be members of local elected bodies. I say nothing at all against these individuals who give up their time in order to do the work of local administration on these bodies, but none of them at present owns any transport whatever, or no public transport of the kind to be taken over by this Bill, and none of the individuals who are to comprise the board, as far as we can discover, has any knowledge whatever of transport problems, and none of them is a specialist on the matter. If I might put the comment which I desire to make on that aspect of affairs in the words of the right hon. Member for South Hackney, on the London Transport Bill of 23rd March, 1931, I should put it in this way:
We desire upon this Board the best business brains that we can secure for the purpose, and the Bill does not exclude from consideration for membership somebody associated with local government in London possessing the necessary business ability. But we must insist upon all the members being persons of business ability and capacity. It is obvious that the people in charge, certainly the Chairman of the Board, must have great industrial, managerial ability, and we must be prepared to pay what is necessary in order to secure that ability, if the undertaking is to be efficient and if the ordinary working people in the industry are not to be let down by incompetent management at the top." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1931; col. 59, Vol. 250.]
There is another curious thing about this Bill. As I have said, it covers the area of 20 local authorities, but in the

middle of that area there are two islands, as it were, two local authorities, whose transport is not to be taken over, within whose area under the Bill, the board would have no power to run vehicles, and these two little authorities will find themselves isolated from the transport facilities which are to be offered by the board. There is an even greater objection, and it is this. In recent years in regard to transport this House has conferred jurisdiction upon the Traffic Commission. The traffic commissioners have had a most difficult task to perform, and I think the House will agree with me that in general they have performed that task fairly, with ability, and with a great deal of satisfaction, and the result is that the various forms of transport in the areas are being co-ordinated by the Commission. They are taking into account, as they must do under the Act of Parliament, the railway and other traffic facilities which are offered.
This proposed board will, to a large extent, be supreme. As I read one of the sections in which there is a direction given to the traffic commissioners, they are to take into account with regard to this board something which they apparently have not to take into account with regard to other owners of motor vehicles. We shall find the traffic commissioners' duties in this area being interfered with. The traffic commissioners who operate in this area, the West Midland Area commissioners, are men of great ability and great experience, and when I tell the House that they are the commissioners who are responsible for the traffic in the whole of the Birmingham area, including the city of Birmingham, they will appreciate that the work which they are doing is work which is not to be done by a set of amateurs.
We think that this is a new system, a new proposal which ought not to be left to be dealt with by a Committee upstairs, which usually deals, and rightly deals, with the details of such proposals, but this is a new proposal upon which the House is not only entitled to pronounce, but ought to have an opportunity of pronouncing. It is a proposal which we suggest cuts into the Regulations and the schemes which the House itself has laid down in recent times as part of legislation as a whole by the introduction of traffic commissioners. We are of opinion that the management of traffic in a rural


area covering such a large district ought not to be conferred upon a board which is to be nominated from individuals on local authorities, some of whom may from time to time lose their seats after they have acquired some knowledge of the problems with which they have to deal.
There is one other curious feature about this Bill. There are two traffic systems in the United Kingdom where an ad hoc authority has been brought into existence to co-ordinate the forms of traffic and to own public transport vehicles. One is in Northern Ireland and the other is the London Traffic Board. In both instances Parliament has laid it down that these boards are to carry on the business so that they must pay their way. This Bill eliminates even that safeguard. It provides that two of the 17 local authorities, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, are to guarantee out of their rates any losses on the undertaking. It is true that in subsequent years these losses may be made good if they are so fortunate as to run the show at a profit, but the difficulty is that pressure may be brought to bear on representatives of public institutions when the awkward moment comes and they have to raise fares in order to make both ends meet. After all, one can well understand the individual objecting when he find that incompetent management by a board, due perhaps to inexperience, has resulted in an increase in these fares.
Let me read one more passage from the speech of the right hon. Member for South Hackney, a speech which is filled with good sense. I commend it to the attention of hon. Members opposite when they are visualising the possibility of putting this power into the hands of a board which is to consist of unpaid representatives of local authorities. On 23rd March, 1931, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We ask ourselves whether this vast business task is necessarily appropriate for politicians with electoral minds at all, for politicians trying to win elections with concessions to electors upon questions of fares, wages and salaries.
That is a very potent question to ask, and the right hon. Gentleman answered it.
When we know how Members of this House are squeezed upon this or that subject at elections, and sometimes submit to the pressure, I began to think twice whether we want these undertakings to be run by the ordinary political mind along ordinary political lines.

I say, quite frankly, that I have come to the conclusion that on the whole, the politician as such is better outside the function of management, unless he qualifies for membership as constituted in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1935; col. 55, Vol. 250.]
There are many other arguments which I could advance on this matter, but may I just deal with one reason which is given in support of the Bill. There are, apparently, a large number of people in Stoke-on-Trent who have been licensed to run public vehicles. The difficulties about the competition which results from that, and the unevenness with regard to fares and timetables and other things, have all been ironed out by reason of the operation of the Traffic Commissioners. With great respect to those who drafted the case for the promoters of this Bill, it seems to me that they have not really owned up, as they might have done, to the fact that the very people who are there, with their local transport vehicles running to such numbers, are the people who were originally licensed by the Stoke-on-Trent authority itself in the days before we had to go to the Traffic Commissioners in order to get a licence to run vehicles on the public roads.
I hope the House will forgive me for not going in greater detail into the objections to this Bill at this hour and after the time that has already been occupied on private legislation this evening, but I submit with Confidence that this matter is one which ought not to be dealt with in a Private Bill. It is not a principle which the House should be asked to accept more or less by chance in a Private Measure, and accordingly I ask the House to support the Amendment which I have moved.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. and learned Friend has covered very fully the objections to this Bill. The House may indeed be surprised that a Bill involving such a revolutionary change is brought forward as a Private Bill. The Bill proposes to set up a board composed entirely of the representatives of local authorities, and that board is to buy up the major portion of all transport undertakings, not only in the area of the two big corporations of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, but in a far wider area embracing


great parts of the three counties of Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire. If this undertaking is run at a loss, it is, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, to be made up from the rates.
We hold that this is pre-eminently a subject for national and not for local legislation, and that if there is a case for a change of this kind, Parliament, by a general Bill, ought to bring in a change in the general law. I think the reaction of the average Member to this Bill is that this type of problem was properly met by the Road Traffic Act, 1930. If I may anticipate the speech which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) will probably make in defence of this Bill, I would like briefly to recapitulate the lines which I am sure he will adopt. He will tell the House that this area is a particularly difficult one for transport undertakings, and that the only way in which the local authorities can meet the present chaotic conditions is by some legislation of this sort. I have two answers to that charge, if he makes it. The first is that the Road Traffic Act, which set up commissioners, gave them just the sort of powers that can properly be applied to such local difficulties. They are required, under the general law, to consider the local needs, the general needs of the area, and how far existing services meet those needs.
I would like to point out that under this Bill, and particularly under Clause 52, the discretion of the Traffic Commissioners is being, for the first time in our law, very seriously fettered. They are to be required, by Clause 52, to give a Statutory preference to these corporations over all other undertakings which may apply for licences. I would remind the House that one of the sanctions by which the Traffic Commissioners have been enabled to secure adherence to their regulations has been the threat to withhold or to suspend the road service licences. If this board remains the only local undertaking, it will obviously be impossible for the Commissioners to exercise that sanction. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the conditions in these counties are chaotic, we are entitled to ask why are they chaotic and who has made them so? They are chaotic chiefly because of the policy of the Stoke Corporation, which has enormously increased the number of local undertakers

—I do not suggest with a view to legislation of this kind, but with some purpose which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will disclose, and all the efforts of existing undertakers in these counties to rationalise their transport have been systematically met by difficulties put in their way by the local authority.
If the right hon. Gentleman cites the case of London, I would, as my hon. and learned Friend has done, remind him that seven expert men, appointed by trustees and obliged to make the service pay, are running London transport, but 39 local politicians, changing no doubt at every election, ignorant of the difficulties of transport, and responsible only to their political supporters, are to dominate the board in this case. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to show that this board will be constituted in a very satisfactory way. Of the 39 members, as he knows, 21 are to be provided by the two councils of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke, and there is to be no representation for the three rural areas of Congleton, Cheadle and Stafford, and no provision whatever for transport in at least two urban areas in the district. One would have thought that a board applying for amazing powers of this kind, greater than any other board has ever received with the exception of the London Passenger Transport Board, would have experience in the running of transport, and I am lost in amazement at the courage of the local undertaking in being prepared to saddle itself with a responsibility of this kind.
There are one or two other provisions to which reference ought to be made. The corporations will have the power, notwithstanding Clause 101 of the Road Traffic Act, to carry on a contract carriage business, which has always been specifically excluded from the powers of local authorities. Parliament has excluded it in the general law. Why should we now be asked to introduce it by Private Bill legislation? If hon. Members are doubtful as to how far the Bill goes, I refer them to Clauses 47, 48 and 51 as an example of Socialism by the backdoor. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will conclude by saying that all the arguments that we have used justify sending the Bill to Committee, but the object of a Second Reading is to decide on the principle of a Bill and the object of a Committee stage is to decide how far a


principle, already conceded shall be given effect to in a particular case. I believe the majority of hon. Members are against the principle of the Bill and this is the time to show that in an emphatic way.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Hollins: This is not the occasion for one in my position to follow the hon. Members who have spoken in a discussion of the Clauses of the Bill. The details of the different Clauses are better left to the Committee, and if we have no greater difficulties to meet than are presented by the arguments of the previous speakers, then, it seems to me, we shall have an easy passage for the Bill in Committee. I speak here in three capacities—as Lord Mayor of the City of Stoke-on-Trent, as a magistrate of Stoke-on-Trent and a citizen of Stoke-on-Trent. It is obvious that neither of the two hon. Members who have opposed the Bill know the area with which this Bill is concerned at all. The North Staffordshire area has always been considered as a unit of itself, and hon. Members who have been there have seen that for themselves. Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, which are dovetailed into each other, are in the centre of that area, and all the passenger services radiate from it into the rural districts. It is a fact that there are 15 other authorities which will be brought into the Board, and at the moment we have their whole-hearted support. I may be able to disabuse the minds of hon. Members opposite, and particularly the last speaker, when he said that this was a backdoor method of introducing Socialism. There are 112 members of the city council of Stoke-on-Trent, and they are there in equal proportions—50–50—Independent and Labour party members, and the Bill has the support of a unanimous vote. Newcastle-under-Lyme has an overwhelming majority of Independents, and we have had our statutory meetings. The one which we held in Stoke-on-Trent was attended by over 1,200 people, and the necessary Motion was declared carried by the Lord Mayor by a majority of nine to one, while I believe that at the Newcastle meeting there was only one dissentient.
The reason which has prompted this Measure is that the coach service in the North Stafford district is most unsatisfactory and is not being run in the interests of the public. The hon. and gal-

lant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) said on the previous Bill that the monopolistic instincts of the Southern Railway had scorned local interests, and the same thing has been happening in our district, but we have got our mandate from the councils of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent with Independent majorities on those councils, not because of any Socialist idea behind the Bill, but because of the necessities of the public that we represent. There are 500 buses, controlled by 58 proprietors, operating in the area covered by the Bill, and that excessive competition has no counterpart in Great Britain. This state of affairs has on numerous occasions been strongly criticised by the West Midland Area Road Traffic Commissioners, who have stated that they would prefer the transport by road to be in the hands of one undertaking.

Mr. Lennox.Boyd: Is it not the fact that the only criticism made by the Road Traffic Commissioners is a general statement, with which no one can quarrel, that it is more difficult to deal with a number of people than with one or two people, and that their criticism was not of the adequacy of the services.

Mr. Hollins: That is what I said. We have 58 opera:ors. I am sure the Minister of Transport would be of the same opinion as we are that we should bring all these 58 operators under one board. The existence of 58 operators in an area such as North Staffordshire should alone convince the House of the desirability of a unified and co-ordinated bus service. The whole purpose of the Bill is to co-ordinate the services. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that there is nothing in the Bill which allowed us to co-ordinate them, but it is the very purpose of the Bill to do that. Since the Bill has been deposited, agreement has been reached with 52 operators out of the 58.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: How many vehicles are involved?

Mr. Hollins: The vehicles number, I think, about 238. Since that tentative agreement has been come to with these operators an offer has been made by the big opponents of this Measure, namely, the Potteries Motor Traction Company, which is the controlling factor owning half the 500 omnibuses. We should


naturally expect that their interests would be protected by hon. Members opposite. Although this company is working on its own, it is at the same time closely allied to other big interests. The real question we have to decide is whether we should give over this unified control to the Potteries Motor Traction Company, or whether we should give it to the transport board mentioned in this Bill. Since the tentative agreement has been come to with 52 of the operators, the Potteries Motor Traction Company have enhanced their price considerably. If there were not the control of the transport board as proposed in the Bill, there is not the slightest doubt that in the next few years there would be a monopoly created by the Potteries Motor Traction Company. In the last few years they have gradually been buying up the little man. The omnibus people had to combine to protect themselves against that particular company.
We have had experience of the Potteries Motor Traction Company when it was known as the Potteries Electric Traction Company. Prior to 1929 that company had control of the tramways in Stoke-on-Trent, and constantly the city was asking them to improve their services, to give better facilities and to lower fares, but could not get a single thing done when they had that monopoly. The city had no power to run an omnibus or a tram, and that concern had an absolute monopoly up to 1929. We could not get any complaints about overcrowding, the scarcity of trams or high fares remedied. We asked the company to sell out to the corporation, which they were willing to do, but there was the question of price between us. If they were willing to sell out then, why are they not willing to sell out now? We know the reason. Since the introduction of the new transport arrangements their shares have gone up from 10s. to £2 12s. 6d. If the House will give us a Second Reading for this Bill, there is not the slightest doubt that we shall break a monopoly in our city, and, as has been said, where there is a monopoly there is no concern for local interests.
I appeal to the House not to allow control to pass into the hands of this company. It was mentioned that a transport board would be to a certain extent a new principle, but there is nothing novel or new in boroughs or

cities having control of their buses or trams. A further point is that there will be no confiscation of the buses under this proposal. A general offer to pur chase has been made and has been accepted by 52 owners, subject to the passing of this Bill. An hon. and learned Gentleman opposite remarked that the House had been told nothing about profits. We have had the services of Mr. Collins, one of the most eminent experts in this department of finance, who has advised us that there will be substantial profits to be made at the price which we are offering and which has been accepted tentatively by 52 owners, and that those profits can be used for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the loan, for the reduction of fares, for the provision of transport facilities for school children, which is an ever growing problem with us in our city, and for the introduction of special travelling facilities in connection with the new housing sites to which we have had to take our people outside the city. We should like to alleviate the hardships of those people. Instances have been given to me where as much as 25s. to 30s. has had to be laid out by a family in fares. We hope, by the economies which can be effected through the centralisation, co-ordination and control which a united service will introduce, to bring some measure of relief, to these people who are compelled to live in the suburbs. Hon. Members opposite must realise that with a centralised service there can be considerable savings combined with greater efficiency; there will be lower overhead charges and more economy and less waste generally.
I know that time is dragging on, but I want to mention some of the difficultieS that we encounter in our area. We have in Stoke-on-Trent what is known as the main road, which is 12 miles in length from the northern end to the southern end of the city, and on that road 22 different proprietors are operating, their vehicles sometimes lining up behind each other, jockeying into position and some-, times cutting in and creating dangerous positions. We have not been able to get: these people to put on the proper number of buses. Complaints have constantly-, come from our workpeople, who wish to be carried from one end of the district to the other at particular times of the day, that they have had to stand in queues and have been left waiting.


Another complaint made by the public in our district is that omnibus shelters should be provided. The proprietors have turned to the City Council and asked them to provide these shelters. That charge should be on the service.
If we get permission for the Second Reading of the Bill I am sure that we can remedy many of its weaknesses in subsequent discussion. I would call attention to one of the conclusions of the Commission, which I hope most hon. Members have read. They say:
The matters raised by the Bill require investigation and consideration, and are not such as are capable of being adequately or Conveniently dealt with upon the Second Reading stage. … If the Bill is not justified it will be rejected by the committee, and such rejection would indicate the deliberate and considered mind of Parliament; … on the other hand, rejection without a hearing is contrary to British principles.
To convince the House that this is an all-Party Measure I would like to read the report of a speech of the Chairman of the Independents upon the City Council, an ex-Mayor, made at the statutory meeting. The report states:
Alderman Harvey, seconding the resolution, said he was confident that the Corporation could come to an agreement with 50 per cent. of the bus owners. It was because of the reasonableness of the price that he seconded the resolution. The matter was one which affected every one in North Staffordshire, and he believed they were the more likely to get the Bill through because they had the co-operation, not only of Newcastle, but of the other local authorities. They were endeavouring to do the best thing possible for the travelling public in North Staffordshire. The difficulty hitherto had been the price, but he thought that any reasonable-minded person who read the statement in the "Sentinel" last night would agree that the proposed price was a reasonable one, and that, therefore, the Bill could be supported whole-heartedly.
A suggestion was made by an hon. Member opposite, who said that the board were supreme and were taking control out of the hands of the Commission. At the same statutory meeting a question was put, whether, if the buses were taken over, the Transport Board would be subject to the control of the Traffic Comissioners in the same way as the present operators. The Town Clerk said, "They will be subject to exactly the same control as the persons operating now."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Clause 52.

Mr. Hollins: We have to take our legal advice from our legal adviser, and he said that. I hope that the House will be fair to the North Staffordshire area, and will give a Second Reading to the Bill, for which a good case has been made.

10.52 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: The senior Member for the City of Stoke (Mr. Hollins) has stated the case for this Bill, and Stoke may congratulate itself on the Debate it has produced. I would congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment for the brevity and eloquence of their orations. But I have heard words that were strangely familiar. I heard them 30 years ago in this House, uttered by prophets of evil whose prophecies have been falsified by events. It is too late now to say that local authorities are incapable of managing business. We have only to look at Glasgow, Manchester and Sheffield to see public bodies, larger in number than Stoke-on-Trent, conducting public services even more complicated than this which is now put forward. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment spoke in English, but it was the voice of Germany. The alternative to government by local authority is government by burgomaster. The burgomaster is an elected permanent official.

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the case that the burgomaster is appointed by the central government?

Colonel Wedgwood: I believe he is now, but in the old days he was an elected person appointed afterwards. The essence of the matter is that you can believe in autocratic rule, or you can do as we have done and gradually develop self-government. Our local authorities throughout the country have taken on one branch of public service after another which, though they managed them badly at first, they have learned how to manage. If we are to say at this stage that a public authority cannot manage things, and that we must hand them over to experts, we are running contrary to the whole course of progress and contrary to British traditions. I do not say that this board of 39 persons will be a perfect body, but it will be just as good as other unpaid bodies who are managing throughout the country and the Empire such services as this.
As to the other famous old difficulty, that we are creating another precedent, we have been creating precedents every year that I have been in the House at the rate of half-a-dozen a minute. In this country we slowly broaden down from precedent to precedent. We have before us not merely the example of London, where there is a different sort of management, but the example of Bradford. Sometimes I have been called over the coals by Bradford, but they have their own service, and they do not manage it so badly. If it is not well managed it is the fault of the Bradford people—

Mr. Holdsworth: Bradford have never had the impudence to say that no one shall run out to their area, as is proposed here.

Colonel Wedgwood: Bradford runs out through other people's areas. I could never hope to emulate the eloquence of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I ask the House to believe that I approach this Bill with more feeling and more desire to see it put on the Statute Book than any other Bill I have ever supported in this House. I am not thinking merely of Stoke. These are my people. It is not merely Stoke that is in question, but the whole of North Staffordshire. Unemployment is terrible in North Staffordshire. You talk about the Special Areas, but I could take you down to districts in my place where unemployment is worse. The mines have all been closed down in the North, whole districts are derelict, and the only way in which these people can get work is by going long distances daily in order to find a pit where they can be allowed still to do their work. Owing to the fact that most of the men are out of work, their wives and the boys and girls are going out trying to make a living, wandering as far afield as Stafford and Leek and Congleton, and even Macclesfield, in order to get a job in the textile factories or in the brickfields, which are now so much within a child's labour.
These people are having to pay anything up to 10 per cent. of their wage in fares week after week, and therefore traffic is a question which touches the really vital interests of the people of North Staffordshire. Factories are shifting out into the country, and our people have to go outside the borough of Stoke-

on-Trent in order to get to their work. You have all the difficulties of transport to work, which are acute enough all over the country, accentuated in Stoke-on-Trent. Stoke-on-Trent itself is a long, straggling, dirty town 12 miles long. That is where the people work, but they live outside in increasing numbers, and daily they go backwards and forwards through the mud and the rain. Just think what it would mean here if every omnibus that we took stopped at the Marble Arch, or Hyde Park Corner, or Victoria Station, and we had to get out and change omnibuses and fight our way into another overcrowded omnibus. It would not be so bad in London, because the omnibuses stop where the other omnibuses start, but I am thinking of Longton, where the omnibuses stop under the railway arches, and the people have to get out of crowded omnibuses into the rain and wander across two dangerous crossings, getting wet, and then have to sit and wait—there are no shelters—for an omnibus which may be a quarter of an hour late, with the omnibuses running at half-hour intervals, to take them to their homes. At every exit from Stoke-on-Trent you have this deadly block, with an average delay of 10 minutes every day for everybody in getting to and from their work. The people are tired. I pass them in my motor car and see them seated in ill-lighted omnibuses, cold, wet and hungry, all because the traffic is the worst in the whole of Great Britain. It is easy enough for Bradford. In North Staffordshire there are 57 different companies or persons owning omnibuses and the traffic commissioner is helpless in dealing with such a problem, because you have these competing people all owning licences all of different values—because a licence on one road is different from another—and the hope of a traffic commissioner getting agreement among all these competing companies is visionary. We have long sought a way out at Stoke-on-Trent. This is the only way we can see.
There is every reason why we should make any number of alterations in the Bill. I am not at all certain that I shall not vote against the Third Reading, for the very good reason that the compensation proposed in it is higher than it ought to be. That is a question for the Committee. It is a question what are the failings of the Bill, how we can improve


the representation of districts outside, how we can get more skilled management, how we can regulate finance so that the undertaking shall meet its expenses. All these matters are questions for the Committee. There is another point which is essentially a matter for the Committee. The question of safety in the streets of Stoke-on-Trent is becoming daily more urgent—competing buses cutting in ahead of each other, the most dangerous thing you could have in these narrow, child-infested streets, stopping places blocked up—at every one of the exits from Stoke the whole bus has to be emptied—the length of time it takes going from work to home driving people more and more to use push and motor bicycles. You have in that city the possibility of tragedy, because it is ever growing as more and more people go outside and come in daily, congesting the traffic. These things are eminently suitable for consideration by a Committee. There is no new principle whatever involved, either of management or of the problem to be considered, and the same old financial questions to be worked out by four honest Members of Parliament instead of the vested interests concerned in the Bill.
May I state again what is in question here? There are in this area 500 buses owned by 57 different companies. With all the privately owned companies—that is nearly half the buses—an arrangement has been made to buy them up at a certain figure, and that figure is £4,000 a bus. I do not wonder that that figure startles the House, but it is too low for the public company, the Potteries Electric Traction Company. I ask hon. Members to think what that means. These buses, worth apparently £4,000 on the road, are written down in the books to £600, £500 and £400. They are selling from eight to ten times that amount. Why? Because they have a licence. There you have an admirable example of what has happened in this country. We passed a Traffic Bill four years ago. The Act has only been in operation three and a half years, and in that short time the value of a licence granted by the Commissioner has risen, if we take into account the garages and other assets in addition to the buses, up to £3,000 a licence. Here we are proposing in this Bill, for a population of, 450,000 souls, to buy up 500 buses at that

figure. That will mean, if the Potteries Electric Traction Company comes in on the same terms as other owners, £2,000,000. There are 450,000 people_ in North Staffordshire, and if you multiply that number by 100 you have the population of this country, roughly speaking. If there is any relation between buses and population, there will be not £2,000,000 value in the licences, but £200,000,000, so that in these few years we have built up a gigantic monopoly value. Every additional licence granted, on the average, means £3,000, and the total value of the licences of the companies running these buses amounts to no less than, I will not say £200,000,000, but £150,000,000. How are we to deal with a proposition such as that?
Take the shares in this one company here referred to. Four years ago they were 9s. 6d. a. share, and now the shares of the same company are 52s. 6d., and if you reject this Bill to-night, I will buy them to-morrow, but I shall not get them for less than Every time you make a present of a licence to the company, you are increasing not its assets, but its power to tax the public. The price we are offering is immense. It is eight times the value, and I do not know whether next year it will be not be 10, times the value. We do not know, we cannot tell whether, if in 20 years we seek to buy up this monopoly, we shall not be paying far more. It is time that the House took it into account and realised whence has come those 219 names on the Order Paper. Never before have we had so many names against a Private Bill, and the reason for that is the vital and enormous financial interest in stopping the Bill. Think of the precautions taken in all other cases by the Government when they confer monopolies, in the case of every public utility company in the country, every gas company, electric light company. Their shares do not go up like this. They cannot go up. Every increase in profits is accompanied in the public utility company by a reduction in the price. The Government safeguard the public against that form of exploitation and, therefore, why do they not safeguard us or allow us to safeguard ourselves against similar exploitation on the part of any other utility service?
My own borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, perhaps inspired by right ideas,


long since bought up all the suburban land within its area. They have been able to town plan and to make their town planning compulsory, a thing which no other local authority in the country has been able to do. That was foresight, of course. They paid too much for the land. They bought up all the agricultural land at a high building price, just as we are proposing to buy these buses, at a high economic price. They made a good job of it, and they have been glad that they did it. Every house that goes up there is an asset to the town. The town is laid out to plan and is a thing of beauty. Whenever I go there I look at Newcastle-under-Lyme and say to myself, "That is what a little foresight can do." Buying up that land has resulted in making a garden city instead of a slum. That is what we want to do in this case. We want to buy up this monopoly before it gets above the sky.
I should like to know whether hon. Members who wish to stop this question going before the Committee upstairs realise that this matter is of great importance not merely to Newcastle-under-Lyme and to North Staffordshire but to the country generally. This growth of monopoly value is a matter of vital importance. Why do hon. Members object to this matter going before a committee of ourselves? Is it due to a desire on their part not to give evidence before that committee, lest their profits should be exposed?
I shall be told by hon. Members that all that is wrong in the transport of North Staffordshire can be remedied by the Traffic Commissioners, that fares can be adjusted, that workmen's fares can be granted and that all the necessary changes can be effected without this Bill. Take the question of fares. If these companies are making profits on a bus value of £4,000, it is obvious that, on the real value of that bus they could make a profit out of a lower fare than they charge to-day. If one goes to the Commissioner and points out what I have been saying to-night, he will say at once: " I have to fix the fares at what is reasonable." What is "reasonable"? Reasonable from the point of view of the public or nom the point of view of the person who bought shares when they were 52s. 6d.? To ensure that the present income and the present possibilities of increment on in-

come shall go on, you must base your fares on quite a different basis from the competitive basis which would be produced if it was possible to run an unlimited number of buses instead of a limited number. If we say that the fares are unreasonable the answer will be that they are reasonable. Is it not fair that those who complain of the fares should be able to see the accounts and ascertain what profits are being made? We have asked for this, and have been refused. Under the Bill it is not compulsory that they should be made known. If we are to have any control over these public utility services we must be able to see what profits are being made.
You could not have a stronger case for a Bill going to Committee where such matters can be decided after sworn evidence has been taken. The real charge against the Measure is that it is a Socialist Measure. That is the reason why they will go into the Lobby against me, in spite of the fact that I am always right. I am about the only real individualist in the House. Nobody has been a stronger defender of private interests than I have been, defending private owners against large combines which have wanted to swallow them for years. I have always been a strong supporter of private enterprise and the right of free competition, believing that free competition was the best means of getting good service and keeping down prices. The Bill will stop free competition and create a monopoly.

Sir Ronald Ross: It is a Socialist Bill; it was passed by a Socialist Government.

Colonel Wedgwood: I am not concerned with what Government passed it; all Governments are equally Socialist. The same question arose in London. We tried to prevent the pirate omnibuses being absorbed by the London General Omnibus Company. We were beaten, and you have a monopoly in London. I am not against public management where free competition can have free play, but where there is a monopoly it ought to be in public hands and under public control. The essence of a monopoly is that it takes from the consumer not a fair price for the article but all that the consumer can pay. Wherever you have monopoly you have robbery of the consumer by the man or institution which owns the monopoly. I do not like that robbery; I do not like


monopolies but if there is to be monopoly and robbery then let the robbery go into the public pocket. It would be a good thing for big business if that rule held good, and the public conscience urges that it should be adopted. It has been adopted in some cases otherwise the Government would not have limited the profits of public utility companies. I have come to consider that it is desirable, for instance, to nationalise the railways. I have come gradually to consider that nearly all municipal services which are monopolies should be public companies simply because, if there is to be a monopoly, the public, who are the victims of that monopoly, should have a voice in the control of it. I do not think this is Socialism. I should say it is common sense and common honesty.
I am sorry to take up so much time, but, after all, this is a matter which is of vital importance to my people. Unlike the hon. Members who moved the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, I have complete confidence in my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I would not even except the Front Bench opposite. I think Members of Parliament make better judges on all matters of public interest than can be found elsewhere. I go even further, and say that Members of Parliament make the best Governors. I suggest that the Colonial Office, the Dominions Office and the India Office should pick their Governors, their Chief Justices and their Attorneys-General from people who have been in the House of Commons and who have had some experience of public affairs. I am sure they would be the best, for they have a sense of public responsibility.
I know of no better body to judge questions such as we have been considering this evening than the Private Bill Committees of the House of Commons. They are not always unanimous, but they are much nearer agreeing when the matter has been discussed than they were when it started. In the whole of my 30 years in the House, I have never heard one whisper against the complete altruism and uprightness of those Committees and their Members. Why cannot hon. Members opposite allow these questions to go before them? What is their objection? They say it is a new principle. It is not; there is nothing new about it. What they

are afraid of is the publication of the facts. What we want to get is the facts, and on those facts, justice. This House has no right to rob my people of the privileges enjoyed in the comfortable and prosperous South. You who control these matters for Middlesex, Essex, Surrey and Kent have no right to deprive us of the same rights that other places have. You have no right to rob my people, who are poor enough already.

11.24 p.m.

Captain Hudson: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if, very briefly, I gave the views of the Government on this Bill. In the first place, I should say that on general grounds we would view sympathetically any sound scheme for co-ordinating passenger traffic in a well-defined area, and incidentally, I agree with the two hon. Members who moved the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill and also with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that a substantial measure of co-ordination of passenger transport has already been achieved, and is being achieved, in the area by the Area Traffic Commissioners set up under the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I thought much of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a plea more for the amendment of the 1930 Act than for the passage of the Bill. The question of whether or not a monopoly is set up by the licensing system would not be put right in the slightest degree by the passage of the Bill. In regard to schemes for the co-ordination of traffic, it is, in my opinion, essential that such a scheme should be sound both as regards finance and administration. Normally the procedure of this House on Private Bills is to send them upstairs to be examined by a Select Committee, and I think it right to tell the House that should this Bill receive a Second Reading the Minister of Transport has a number of criticisms of the Bill which he would have to lay before that Select Committee in his report.
The first criticism concerns the size and constitution of the board. It is to consist of 39 members elected by local authorities in the area. They must themselves be members of the local authorities and are liable to recall at any time. If they lose their seats on the local authorities they lose their seats on the board. We do not feel that a large body so constituted is the appropriate body to carry


out the complicated business of transport. We believe that the transport board should consist of a much smaller number of persons, including those with knowledge and experience of transport, and we think that the chairman certainly should devote the whole of his time to the work of the board. This part of the Bill will need very drastic alteration. Secondly, there is grave objection to the proposal that any losses should be made up by the rates. This, we feel, may weaken the board's sense of financial responsibility, and I think, myself, that any sound scheme of co-ordination should be self-sufficient financially. The last of the major criticisms is that there appears to be no proposal for co-ordination with the railways. The L.M.S., the L.N.E.R. and the G.W.R. all operate in the area, and all are providing passenger transport and I should have thought that such co-ordination was essential to a proper area scheme. There are other points, more detailed, to which we should have to draw attention in the report. I would say, incidentally, that such criticisms of the

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[11.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Hayday, A.
Parker, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Potts, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pritt, D. N.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Keeling, E. H.
Ridley, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bevan, A.
Lathan, G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Lawson, J. J.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bromfield, W.
Leach, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Brooke, W.
Leckie, J. A.
Sexton. T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Silkin, L.


Cluss, W. S.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lunn, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Dalton, H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Tirker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mander, G. le M.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Markham, S. F.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W,
Mathers, G.
Whiteley, W.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibbins, J.
Milner, Major J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, G. D.
Paling, W.
Mr. Hollins and Mr. Ellis Smith.

existing scheme as have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) would have to be examined by the Committee if the Bill goes upstairs. This is a private Bill, and it is for hon. Members to decide whether it should have a Second Reading or not. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he demanded a Second Reading for the Bill. Whether it should be read a Second time or not is in the hands of hon. Members. If the House wishes to throw out the Bill, it can do so, and it will not be doing anything against the normal procedure of Parliament. There is, I can see, a big divergence of opinion. I am not trying to influence the House in any way. What I say is that if the Bill is sent upstairs, my Ministry will give any assistance in its power for which the Committee may ask in order to try to make it a workable Measure.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, io8; Noes, 163.

NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Ellis, Sir G.
O'Conner, Sir Terence J


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P G.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Emmott, C. E. G. C
Patrick, C. M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Penny, Sir G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Percy, Rt. Hen. Lord E.


Apsley, Lord
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Assheton, R.
Everard, W. L.
Petherick, M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Fleming, E. L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Foot, D. M.
Porritt, R. W.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Furness, S. N.
Procter, Major H. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Goldie, N. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ramsdsn, Sir E.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Rankin, Sir R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Remer, J. R.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brooklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Rowlands, G.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hepworth, J.
Scott, Lord William


Bull, B B.
Holdsworth, H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Carver, Major W. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Somerset, T.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hunter, T.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Jonas, L. (Swansea W.)
Storey, S.


Channon, H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Latham, Sir P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Colfox, Major W P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Levy, T.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Liddall, W. S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R, L.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Lyons, A. M.
Turton, R. H.


Craven-Ellis, W.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Crooke, J. S.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Warrender, Sir V.


Cross, R. H.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Cruddas, Col. B.
McKie, J. H.
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dawson, Sir P.
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


De Chair, S. S.
Magnay, T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Denville, Alfred
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wragg, H.


Dodd, J. S.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Doland, G. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Morgan, R. H.



Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Duggan, H. J.
Munro, P.
Mr. Croom-Johnson and Mr.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Nall, Sir J.
Lennox-Boyd.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

ESTIMATES.

Ordered,
That Mr. Brocklebank be discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates, and that Captain Ramsay be added to the Committee." —[Sir G. Penny.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Ordered,
That Mr. Brocklebank be added to the Committee of Public Accounts."—[Sir G. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.